The person charging this material is re- 
sponsible for its return to the library from 
which it was withdrawn on or before the 
Latest Date stamped below. 

Theft, mutilation, and underlining of books 


are reasons for disciplinary action and may 
result in dismissal from the University. 


UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LIBRARY AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN 


L161— 0.1096 


THE MANUSCRIPT-TRADITION OF 
PLUTARCH’S AETIA GRAECA 
AND AETIA ROMANA 


BY 


JOHN BRADFORD TITCHENER 


A.B. Clark College, 1917 
A.M. University of Illinois, 1921 


THESIS 


SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS 
FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN CLASSICS 
IN THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY 
OF ILLINOIS, 1923 


Reprinted from the University of Illinois Studies in Language and Literature, 
Volume IX, Number 2, page 249 


CopvricHt, 1924 ‘ pte ; 
By THE University or Inuinors Press 


THE MANUSCRIPT-TRADITION OF 
PLUTARCH’S AETIA GRAECA 
AND AETIA ROMANA 


BY 


JOHN BRADFORD TITCHENER 


Tue UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 
1924 


— 


‘hiv 


= 


PB 
% 


a 


cn) 


kaa 
iv 


PREFACE 


I shall take this opportunity to express my thanks to Professor W. A. 
Oldfather and Professor A. S. Pease for their ever-ready and ever-helpful 
advice and criticism while the present study was in preparation; I wish 
also to thank Professor J. D. Fitzgerald for his kind assistance in the 
difficult task of obtaining manuscript-photographs from Toledo, Mr. C. G. 
Lowe for the verification of certain references, and Professor F. E. Robbins 
for aid in the drawing of the stemmata. 

JoHN BRADFORD TITCHENER 
Ann Arbor, Michigan 
November 15, 1923. 


‘Sane 


TABLE OF CONTENTS 


PART I 
MEERA CLIC PR Eek ec Cea oe ier thle ts ca eo ean wee Kee etn ey 9 
I Maximus Planudes and Plutarch..............-- ee esse eee 10 
PIPMIRIIECTIDUR he Clon nye epee cee saws cana s tenes es 12 
UMMECH aT Oe ee cs eee ee Se ee ee wee ole ed ed = 16 
IV Previous Studies on the Manuscripts of the Moralia......... 17 
V Wegehaupt’s Group Theory. .......------e sree eee ee eees tp 

PART II 
Pep NEI het ei ag lard a GlRtm Me lohan Booed ped erin Ay Se oLaisiin jhe n * rme m aR al hh 23 
POAT CUEL VDA iiainhonis arian sond cuttin tbeiaicics wae rae aT vse Leen 24 
BREE ihe ean ts ia ke ole cyte natal Dh caning ctatas onbtinetal oy =payeunaingy = 24 
PLU EZ, Mo Ry cANZs, ANG Ly o0.25)0 os sige tie giecinne ys FE 25 
Ne Riek ee rel ia tall GA Nar di alse wi mi atin or Mohn Colne seg 27 
Be OU TE en a iy alts he Ls ahaa Use Gin l itikde Gh allot Miaiteihe nde, senate xt ma # 31 
Eg We EWU ATU ie citer’ wile win wi eens tv oinuey=s yp tne dipteib aval aliniect lola! § 35 
NRRL ORE Fe tr RU A al «aa ko ealiariohetated g's wimiorid ot Pum cues ar be it 42 
RMP ICE SITAR Ried ee Clty shy hale waz e ete ee ee ee ee le ND 9 48 
Se eT IR REY Ce eae Heron ont ayy aeen ene Ae a Pa 51 
POAT A ECLITI@ EEC CUETONTY gfe. ince re hlga aber etch ain Pia ttde Wcaiv ny diesel oS) 0) ae 59 
Pe PAL Care baa LT) oii cee es ciala) wis, oh senhetia w apalsha Ni waa leunlnts. Sie\giary mbepw aie © aie 62 
EP aber da SIMRO OTADILY <2 5i— iri aiaj apricot olaie o's) slope tines imino) pan SHY 65 
Ua Gee Cad OF GILG Us alana hs i aiden sien Aree omen ha: Herein a yb aie 4re ence 66 


SMO LLL SICA beta abi spa visiete ches aha ek! iain a) dia, y anahipigieintin dnp ge 67 


n ? 1 
is 
: we 
Ce ERMA. eon (Ur yea" sh An ‘ S48 My Fee 
5 ‘ 
’ ios at) iy ° Mio Muti Ho 
j h 
@oe Tl me Sie \ one | eal in i a Gn 
“ ee A ek Gs; a a a a a 
' Ree ree a ee Oe tee em Pie 
: 
eee O88 pte Ky ee wae 
1) By) aN he eG a ake 4 ie ied » 
y 
4 © Gee Foe tb) Waren L ee, ee 4 ‘ 
e f 5 a ao ' A 4 
P + > ‘ oa i oe Ses oo el as 
t wey TEM Ae ae Me ARS Be ah 
i 
. ni dadls i : Pee pe ee a a ee 
# Him By By eS BAe ie ee" 6 ca 
- ‘ 


ie l j 
ay * A. Melee A ee ete the OR a ee A ae to eer er ie eg 


My 
waar 


Sukhi ie 


er 


sy a 


t 
ih @ Waker es 


Pal ee 
ey Pyle me’ 


PART I 
INTRODUCTION 


Bernardakis’ edition of Plutarch’s Moralia, Leipzig, 1888, is an ad- 
mirable illustration of the fact that no edition, maior or minor, can be 
satisfactory, unless it is based on a knowledge of extant manuscripts and 
editions, accurately quoted. In 1888, no one had attempted a systematic 
search for manuscripts of Plutarch, and Bernardakis was handicapped by 
this fact, but since that time Hahn and Wegehaupt have catalogued and 
in a measure described some two-hundred and fifty manuscripts containing 
one or more of the Moralia. It is a comparatively easy matter to-day to 
run down the manuscript-sources for any given essay. 

The present study is an attempt to determine the manuscript-tradition 
of the Aetia Romana and the Aetia Graeca, upon which I hope to base an 
edition of the two essays. With that in mind I have limited myself in 
this discussion to the classification of manuscripts; the authenticity of the 
Aetia Graeca and the condition of the text are questions which I have 
reserved for a later time. However, as a background to the problems that 
must necessarily be faced here, I have included the theoretical views of 
various scholars on Maximus Planudes and Plutarch, a note on Wege- 
haupt’s Group-theory, and finally, from previous critical studies I have 
abstracted conclusions that affect manuscripts containing the Aeta 
Romana and Graeca. 

For the rest, the three supplementary Tables need a word of explana- 
tion. Reference to Table 1, the bibliography, will be made by the author’s 
name, the date and page of the particular publication, e.g.: Treu, 1877:10. 
Table 2 gives the order of the essays in the most complete of all Plutarch 
manuscripts, Paris. 1672, which has become the standard for reference 
and comparison; the essays will be quoted by their respective numbers in 
this list. The third Table, the sigla, is largely arbitrary; editors have in 
general followed Wyttenbach in using A and E for the two Paris manu- 
scripts 1671 and 1672, but beyond this have observed no uniformity. 


I. MAXIMUS PLANUDES AND PLUTARCH 


Maximus Planudes, the famous editor of the Greek Anthology, has 
bequeathed his name to the thirteenth-century Byzantine revision of 
Plutarch’s Moralia, the Corpus Planudeum. Wyttenbach! discovered a cor- 
rection attributed to Planudes in A and adds: in quo describendo, et omnino 
in Plutarcho emendando, aliquid operae collocatum fuisse a Maximo Planude 
non abhorret a verisimilitudine. From this hint the theory developed, upon 
curiously good even if only partial evidence, that Planudes had collected 
all possible writings of Plutarch, edited them, and thus produced the 
archetype of the Corpus Planudeum. The theory culminates with Me- 
waldt’s discussion,” after Treu? had determined the dates of Planudes’ life, 
circa 1260—1310, but as knowledge of the manuscripts increased, Wege- 
haupt‘ realized that it was untenable. The evidence in brief is as follows. 

In the first place, there is no trace of a Plutarchean Corpus before the 
end of the thirteenth century. Secondly, in §23 of the twenty-second 
essay of A is the correction which Wyttenbach found with the introduction: 
oUTws olouat dety ypavecOat, while E has the same correction introduced in 
this way: otrws 6 xiptos Matos TAavobdns oterat detv ypdyecOar. Thirdly, 
Planudes added to the Anthology manuscript, Marcianus 481, a wivat 
IIdovrapxov, similar to A in number and order of essays, followed by the 
phrase ratra rdvra evtpeOnoay and the titles of lost works which were 
included in the Lamprias-Catalogue.> Lastly, some letters of Planudes 
were found, written in the years 1295 and 1296, in which he declared his 
intention ra rov IIdourdpxou BiBdia ypaya.® Given a well-known scholar, 
proof of his interest in an author in a certain year, a manuscript, A, which 
is dated in the same year and contains a correction ascribed by the author 
of manuscript E to this same scholar, and the case looks singularly complete. 
However, M, older than A as Wegehaupt says, with the same order of essays 
and a similar text, had escaped notice; A and E had been the center of dis- 
cussion, E, the later, in its relationship to A, and A in its relationship to 
Planudes. 


1'Vol. 1, p. Ixx. 

21906 passim. 

31877: 14-15. 

41909, 

’ Treu in 1873 showed that this was a librarian’s compilation, not an index to an early 
Plutarchean Corpus; see Ziegler, 1908 and Wegehaupt, 1906, chapter III. 

®See Wegehaupt, 1909: 1030 ff; the edition of Planudes’ letters, I have not been able 
to obtain. 


10 


259] PLUTARCH’S AETIA GRAECA AND AETIA ROMANA 11 


On further examination it was found that the handwriting of A was not 
that of Marcianus 481, signed by Planudes himself. Mewaldt avoided this 
difficulty by supposing that Planudes turned over his material to a secretary 
or friend who did the actual copying. A, moreover, is dated July, 1296, and 
Planudes says in his letters that he did not procure his parchment until 
March of that year, which leaves a very short interval in which to copy a 
manuscript of such length. But the one insurmountable objection to accept- 
ing A as the archetype of the Corpus is the existence of M. M has the cor- 
rection in the twenty-second essay in the first person asit isin A, in a hand 
which is not that of the text, but which I believe is that of Planudes.’? In 
short while Planudes’ interest in Plutarch is undeniable and we have one 
emendation in M assigned to him by the author of the fourteenth-century 
E, we have no positive evidence that he originated the Corpus nor as a 
matter of fact that he ever made his proposed copy. The letters end, 
unfortunately, with the information that the parchment has been secured. 

The value of the Corpus-manuscripts textually became important 
after Duebner in the Didot edition of 1856 had emended the earlier editions 
consistently in favor of the beautifully readable E. In 1889 Treu’ ventured 
the statement that there was another tradition, more complete and some- 
times with better readings. Paton® in 1893 definitely described these 
manuscripts as inter polait, and von Wilamowitz,’° reviewing Paton’s edition, 
summarizes: Wir diirfen Dank seiner Probe sehr viele Handschriften 
fortwerfen, darunter eben das Corpus. The Corpus cannot yet be entirely 
rejected, but it will never again be considered the best line of tradition. 

Wegehaupt agrees with Mewaldt that A is the manuscript mentioned in 
Planudes’ letters, but denies that this is the archetype of the Corpus; 
M is earlier, probably written about 1290 following the order prescribed 
by Planudes. I shall quote his excellent summary of the value of the 
Corpus-manuscripts for text-criticism:"—Das Corpus ist eine Ausgabe, 
eine Textrezension. Ob sie bei ihm (Planudes) beginnt oder ob er im Mosc. 
354, Urb. 97 usw. seine Vorlaufer geiibt hat, darauf kommt es nicht so 


sehr an. .. Lesbar ist der Text des Planudeums in allen Schriften in 
Vergleich zu andern Handschriftenklassen so dass er von der eklektischen 
Kritik leicht iiberschatzt werden konnte. . . Das Planudeum ist aber 


noch nicht entbehrlich geworden. Denn es fragt sich, ob wir im allen 
Schriften seine Quellen kennen lernen werden. . . Die grésste Vorsicht 


7 T have photographs of Planudes’ signature in Marcianus 481 and of this correction in M 
and there is a strong similarity although, since one is an abbreviated marginal scrawl and the 
other a formal book-hand, I cannot positively identify them; on the other hand there can be 
no doubt that Planudes was not the actual copyist of any of the mss. with which I am working. 

8 1889: 617. 

91893: xiv. 

10 1896: 328. 

11909: 1044. 


12 PLUTARCH’S AETIA GRAECA AND AETIA ROMANA [260 


allem gegentiber, was das Corpus selbstandig zu iiberliefern scheint, ist 
jedenfalls tiberall geboten, wenn auch die Méglichkeit nicht ausgeschlossen 
ist, dass es auch an solchen Stellen wirklich Altes gibt. Das Uebrige ist als 
Konjectur des Planudes zu betrachten; aber auch darunter ist viel Gutes. 

One more word must be added on the Corpus-manuscripts as a whole. 
A and E were the first manuscripts of the Corpus to be known, and A and E 
are meant when the Corpus is mentioned by any author, but the Corpus 
has grown to such an extent that the title has lost much of its significance. 
M, A, E, and R2 have the same order 1-69, but the individual texts differ 
enough to make a collation of each necessary, at least until their relation- 
ships are established. R3, with a text like that of A and E but with a 
different order, also belongs to the Corpus, so that the order of essays does 
not remain as a Strict criterion. However, the phrase Planudean Corpus is 
still useful in referring to the order 1-69, or to the text of the Corpus- 
manuscripts, which is clearly enough differentiated from that of the manu- 
scripts that have escaped the corrective influence of this line of tradition. 


II. MANUSCRIPTS 


Fifteen of the manuscripts catalogued by Hahn and Wegehaupt contain 
62, the Aetia Romana and the Aetia Graeca, in whole or in part, and I 
have been able to use photographs of each of these for my collations. Since 
several of the standard catalogues have not: been accessible, I have 
quoted a description of each codex from one of the articles listed in the 
bibliography, with references to the notices of other authors, adding the 
extent to which each codex has been collated and the author of the collation. 

A= Paris. 1671, anno 1296, parchment, in 4°, 3829 cm., 492 leaves. 
On the final page is written: éypdgn kata Tov iovdALoy wnva TOV TTWS THs VP 
Tpexovons ivdukTL@vos 0 THs aylas evdd—ou kal mavevynuov evynutas. ebxec0E pe 
dbeAGoL pou Ota THY moAA@Y wou cyaduaTwY. aunv. ayla Tprds BonOer Autv+. 
It contains the Vitae and Moralia 1-69 and has been used by every editor 
since Wyttenbach (except B. Miiller; A does not contain 77). See Treu 
1871, chapter 1; Larsen, p. 4; Hahn, p. 4; Mewaldt, p. 824; Wegehaupt, 
1909, passim; Omont, vol. 2, p. 118. 

Ang.=Angelicanus 63, s. XIV, paper. On ordering photographs of 62 
made from this manuscript, I received nine photographs, each showing a 
verso and a recto; the rectos are numbered in a modern hand five to thir- 
teen. Folio 4v contains the end of the Parallela Romana et Graeca, the first 
of the Aetia Romana and the second as far as xnpiwvas (Bern. vol. 2, p. 250, 
1.16). 5r begins with yewpy in no. 7 of the Parallela, 307 F (Bern. 361, 11), 
which continues to tbpavvos, 315 D (Bern. 381, 4), at the bottom of 12v. 
13r is blank. This detailed explanation of an apparent error is necessary 
from the fact that the Angelicanus was originally a part of the codex Paris. 
1680, (P). Omont, vol. 2, p. 124, followed by Hahn, p. 10 and Bernardakis, 


261] PLUTARCH’S AETIA GRAECA AND AETIA ROMANA 13 


vol. I, p. xii, gives the contents of P thus: 61, 63-69, 78 frg. As a matter 
of fact P contains 62, beginning with dvouafsovoww, exactly where Ang. ends. 
The hands of the two manuscripts, the decorations in capital letters and 
at the end of chapters, the punctuation marks are identical, and there 
can be no doubt that P-Ang. was written as one manuscript. P has kept 
its order, but the leaves of Ang. have become slightly confused. Wytten- 
bach pp. lxii, cxlix, and clx used P for 62 and 78. Bernardakis, 1, xii-xiii, 
collated 78, finding the codex of no value. Paton omits. See also Treu, 
1871. 

E= Paris. 1672,s. XIV, parchment, 40X27 cm., 945 leaves. It contains 
the Vitae and Moralia complete. Treu, 1877:5, discovered five hands: 
1, fol. 2—706; 2, 707-869r; 3, 870-875; 4, 876-936; 5, 1 and 937-944. He 
adds that Marc. 481, dated September 1302, and signed by Maximus 
Planudes, contains an index of the Vitae and Moralza, 1-69, agreeing with 
A, and a list of the lost works from the Lamprias-Catalogue (1877:11). 
Since this list omits 70-78 which E contains, it was argued that E was 
later than the index, which establishes 1302 as the terminus post quem 
for E. Wegehaupt, 1909:1034, recapitulates this theory and agrees (1909: 
1030) with Treu and Mewaldt that A and E have a common origin. Behr, 
p. 69, argues that Treu has not proved that E could not be a copy of A; 
70-78 and other omissions in A could have been added to E from other 
sources, while the lacunae in E where A is complete might be due to the 
difficulty of reading in A or to the caution of the copyist who waited for 
a verification that never came. However, since Mewaldt discovered poor 
readings in A, derived from Laur. Conv. Soppr. 296, which do not occur in 
E, Behr concluded that E represents a further step in the text-critical 
activity of Planudes, copied from the corrected prototype of A. 

Fi=Laur. 56, 2, s. XIV, paper, 28X21 cm., 289 leaves. It contains 
18, 19, 21, 56-61, 36, 35, 65, 62, 66, 69, 52, 58, 44, 45,43. Treu, 1877: 11-12 
and 1884:7, declared that the text is worthless and that the two copies 
of 58 are not from the same source. He also pointed out several lacunae, 
of which one in 69 is also found in W, and observed that the order of the 
last fifteen essays in W agrees with the order of the first fifteen in F1. 
Paton omits. See Hahn, p. 18; Wegehaupt, 1906:27. 

F2=Laur. 80, 5, s. XIV, paper, 29X21 cm., III+465-+III leaves. It 
contains 1-69, 78 in the order of E. Wyttenbach and Paton omit. It was 
collated by Reinach for 39; by Demoulin for 31; by Behr for 2; by Wege- 
haupt for 20. See Wegehaupt 1906:27; Hahn p. 20. 

F3=Laur. 80, 21, s. XV, paper, 29X20 cm., 294 leaves. It contains 
43-48, 22, 24, 27 (excerpt only), 28, 30-33, 35, 36, 39, 42, 49-51, 61-63, 
68, 55, 66, 53, 54, 65, 23, 37. It was used by B. Miiller; Paton omits. 
Studemund, 1877:153, collated a part, and Reinach, 1900:xliii, quotes him 


14 PLUTARCH’S AETIA GRAECA AND AETIA ROMANA [262 


in saying that F3 is a copy of R3. Demoulin collated it for 31. See 
Wegehaupt, 1906:28; Hahn, p. 20. 

L=Voss. gr. 2,s. XV, paper, 26X19 cm., two volumes, 560 leaves (269 
and 291). Vol. 1 contains 51, 56, 57, 59, 60, 31, 28, 4; vol. 2, 8, 18, 34, 61, 
62,7,9, 11,17, 15,10, 22. Demoulin, p. 281, gives the history of this codex; 
except for leaves 1-41 it was copied by G. Hermonymus of Sparta, whose 
notes are on the first pages; the later notes are by G. Budé. It belonged 
to A. Petau, son of Paul Petau, then to Isaac Voss, came to the library of 
Leyden and is there today, not, as Demoulin says, in the British Museum. 
Wyttenbach used all of this manuscript, p. Ixxv, cli, cliv. Demoulin 
collated it for 31. Diels, p. 38, says: Contextus Vossiani, s. XV, mitide con- 
scriptus cum vulgata qualem praebet C (=Paris. 1672, my E) omnibus 
rebus concordat. See Hahn, p. 31, who differs from Demoulin’s order, 
quoted above, in giving 68 for 60, and 29 for 34. | 

M=Ambr. C 126 inf., s. XIII, parchment, 33X24 cm., I(paper)-+I-+ 
397+1+1 (paper) leaves. It contains the Moralia 1-69. 69 was collated 
by Graeven for Paton; 31 by Demoulin; 20 by Wegehaupt; 2 by Behr. 
Wegehaupt discusses the relationship of M to Mosc. 354 (also numbered 
Mosc. 1) at some length, 1909:1033-1042. See also Bernardakis, vol. 1, 
p. xii; Hahn, p. 22; Wegehaupt, 1906:39; Treu, 1884:10. 

P= Paris. 1680, s. XIV, paper, 339 leaves. See under Ang. above. 

Ri=Vat. Reg. Suec. gr. 80, s. XV, parchment, 35X27 cm., 139 leaves. 
It contains 31lfrg., 32-53, 55-69. This codex belonged to Paul Petau; it 
was used by Bongars whose notes were added to the Frankfort editions of 
1599 and 1620, and to the Paris edition of 1624. It was collated by Demou- 
lin for 31; Diels, p. 38, says: De vulgatorum codicum turba paulo melior 
est Petavii quidam liber . . . Nimirum alterius classis codex ad corrigendum 
adscitus fuisse videtur. See Treu, 1877:13; von Wilamowitz, 1890:204; 
Paton, 1893:v; Wyttenbach, vol. 1, p. cxviii; Hahn, p. 15. 

R2=Vat. gr. 139, s. XIII, parchment, 35X27 cm., 601 leaves. It 
contains 1-69, 78. It was collated by Paton for 68, 69; the first nine chap- 
ters of 39 by Studemund and Reinach; by Demoulin for 31; by Wegehaupt, 
1911, for 20; by Behr for 2, in which appeared marginal and interlinear 
corrections by a second hand; by Wyttenbach, p. Ixii, for 78. See also 
Hahn, p. 14. 

R3=Vat. gr. 1013, s. XIV (s. XV Paton, Demoulin and Behr; end of 
s. XIII Studemund and Reinach; s. XIV Wegehaupt, which I believe to 
be correct), paper, 32X23 cm., 218 leaves. It contains 1-21, 29, 58, 52, 
55-57, 64, 67-69, 66, 43-48, 53, 54, 53 (so Mewaldt, 1906, note p. 830, 
quoting Treu’s spoken word), 22, 24-28, 30, 31-36, 39-42, 49-51, 59-65, 
23, 37, 38. It was collated by Paton for 68 and 69; first nine chapters of 39 
by Studemund and Reinach; by Demoulin for 31; by Wegehaupt for 20; 
by Behr for 2. Wegehaupt at first disagreed with Paton who put this codex 


263] PLUTARCH’S AETIA GRAECA AND AETIA ROMANA 15 


in the Planudean Corpus, adding that the index omits the titles of the last 
six essays, among which 64 occurs for the second time; this meant two 
sources, of which the latter might have belonged to the Corpus. In his 
1909 study, p. 1044, he changed his position and included R3 in the Corpus. 
Mewaldt, p. 830, distinguishes three groups, 1-53 (second time), 22-65 
and 23-38. The middle group clearly shows the order of the Planudean 
Corpus. 

T= Toletanus 20; Hahn p. 29, quotes two references, one assigning it to 
s. XIV and one to's. XVI, and continues: continet 32 Moralia hoc ordine: 
30, 24, 6, 49, 35, 27, 33, 28, 36, (I), 37, 36 (II), 44, 66, 76, 38, 44, 73, 46, 
13,12, 58, 71, 50,51, 53, 69, 61, 62, 65, 63, 74, 32,25. For the photographs 
of this codex I am deeply indebted to Professor J. D. Fitzgerald, of the 
Department of Romance Languages at the University of Illinois, who 
obtained permission to have the photographs taken and secured them with 
this note: Padre Lorenzo Frias, Catalogo de la Biblioteca de Toledo, 
Plutarco: sus obras morales en griego: un tomo fol. de vitela. Z—Fol. 51— 
5, and this description: Magnifico ejemplar por la belleza de su escritura y 
por buen estado de conservacién, que debié pertenecer a Leon X 0 a 
Clemente VII, a juzgar por el escudo pontifical con las armas de los Médicis 
que aparece al pié de la primera hoja del ms.! 

V=Marc. 248, s. XV, parchment, 42X28 cm., II (paper) +460+II 
(paper) leaves. A note at the end declares that it was completed Feb. 1, 
1455 by Joh. Rhosus. It contains 1-69, 78. Wyttenbach used it for these 
essays: 31, 33, 62, 69, 55, 52, 45, 37, 24, 23, 78, 49, 48, 41, 51, 50, 38, 77 
(so Wyttenbach; Miiller, p. 2-3, says that V has only an epitome of 77, 
i.e. 42), 66 and 43, which in his edition are numbers 13, 19, 20, 30-32, 37, 
46, 49, 50, 52, 57, 60, 62, 63, 71, 72, 74,77. It was collated by Bernardakis, 
p. xiii, for 27, 47, 48; by Treu, 1873:25, for the Lamprias-Catalogue; by 
Studemund for 39, first eight chapters; by Demoulin for 31; by Wege- 
haupt, 1911, for 20; by Behr for 2. See also Reinach, 1900:xli; Hahn, 
p. 12; Paton, 1893:v, note; Wyttenbach, p. cli. 

W=Vindob. 74, s. XV, paper, 487 leaves. It contains 22-27, 1, 28-33, 
20, 34, 3-19, 21, 56-61, 36, 35, 65, 62, 66,69. See under Fi above. Wytten- 
bach used this codex for 1 and this or Vindob. 75 for 23. Demoulin omits, 
as does Paton. Wegehaupt collated it for 20. See Treu, 1884: 6; Hahn, 
p. 25. Wegehaupt, 1909:1938, decided from a study of 28 that W and M 
had a common origin; from 20, that the prototype of W was a codex of the 
Pre-Planudean class, contaminated by a Corpus-manuscript which was 
not M. 


1 According to the Archivist of the Cathedral of Toledo, Eduardo Estella, this manuscript 
came to Spain toward the end of the 18th century in the library of Cardinal Zelada, which 
was brought almost intact to Toledo by Cardinal Lorenzana. According to the same authority, 
the manuscript dates from the end of the 15th, or beginning of the 16th, century, which I 
believe to be the correct date. 


16 PLUTARCH’S AETIA GRAECA AND AETIA ROMANA [264 


III. EDITIONS 


The editio princeps of Plutarch’s Moralia, prepared for the Aldine 
press by Demetrius Ducas in 1509, still maintains in part a certain text- 
critical value., .The order of the essays:is: 2, 6, 15, 7;.3,.5, 16; 1690s 
24, 34, 31, 21, 59, 60, 33, 20, 62, 69, 68, 51, 61, 40, 48, 64, 43-46, 32, 4, 
55} 8-24, 17, 19, 56, 57, 36, 28, 35, 52, 20,58, 65, 38, 53, 27, 24, 47, ae 
39, 41, 63, 66, 26, 67, 25, 77, 42, 49, 50, 78, 70-76, which certainly bears no 
close resemblance to the order of the Corpus. 

Treu! began a systematic search for its sources and an attempt to 
discover the amount of emendation that Ducas had introduced, for in his 
preface Ducas had declared that he had used several manuscripts, that he 
had emended to the best of his ability, and that passages which defied 
emendation he had printed as they stood. Treu verified this statement by 
finding a manuscript which bore explanatory annotations for the use of 
the compositor in setting up the Aldine edition. The manuscript was 
Ambr. 195, the principal source for the twenty-five essays numbered 4-47 
above, but 38 and 8 showed that other manuscripts were used as well. 
Treu summarizes as follows:—Ambr. 195 replaces the Aldine text for these 
twenty-five essays; Ducas did not use any of the Venetian manuscripts, 
as Wyttenbach? supposed; the order of the essays is accidental and does 
not reflect that of its sources; the value for text-criticism where its sources 
are not known is doubtful because Ducas emended (sometimes well, 
sometimes poorly), just as he stated in the preface. 

In addition Treu showed that the source of 70-77 in the Aldine edition 
was Paris. 1675; of 42, 49, 50 was Vat. 1013; and that the ultimate source of 
78 was Vindob. 72, but this obviously leaves two large groups unexplained. 
Wegehaupt® recapitulates Treu’s results and disagrees strongly with 
Paton* who says:—Ex hoc codice ¢ (unde derivatum est corpus Planudeum) 
postquam interpolatus est, statim descripts sunt codex Ducae, Vat. 139, 
Paris. 1672. Wegehaupt believed it in the highest degree improbable that 
a manuscript belonging to the Planudean Corpus served as a basis for the 
Aldine text. | 

Critical studies on single essays have added little information. Weil 
and Reinach® speak of the text of 39 as “‘établi d’aprés les mss. de Venise, 
si lon en croit Graesse,’’ with evident hesitancy to contradict Treu. 
Demoulin® does not touch upon editions except in a footnote. Wegehaupt’ 
for 20 was unable to discover what manuscripts Ducas used; Paris. 3023 

11877: 12; 1881; 1884: 15-30. 

2 Pixos, 

31905: 411. 

41893: xv. 

5 1900: xlviii. 

oO. Zio: 

A ASTTs St. 


265] PLUTARCH’S AETIA GRAECA AND AETIA ROMANA 17 


with corrections by the first hand was closest. Behr® had the same ex- 
perience with 2, finding Ambr. Q. 89 the most similar. As Wegehaupt 
suggested, the manuscript-originals were probably neglected and lost 
after they had served their purpose. 

The successive complete editions up to the time of Wyttenbach, Basel, 
1542, Stephanus, 1572, Xylander, 1574, were largely reproductions of the 
Aldine text with emendations by their various authors. The Graeco-Latin 
edition of Frankfort, 1599 and 1629, and Paris, 1624 added in appendices 
the notes of Turnebus, Bongarsius and Vulcobius, and the variant readings 
of a ‘“‘Petavianus”’ codex, which has since been shown to be Vat. Reg. Suec. 
80. Reiske, 1778, has no trace of new collation, while Hutten, 1891, 
follows Reiske, adding an occasional emendation. 

Wyttenbach in his great edition of 1795 brought to light for the first 
time a hidden treasure of manuscripts; for the Aetia Romana and Aetia 
Graeca he used E, P, Vand L. Duebner in the Didot edition of 1856 made 
use of the resources of the Bibliothéque Nationale of Paris, which meant 
for 62 that he introduced many readings from E, not a few of them peculiar 
to it. Hercher’s edition does not include 62. Lastly, the severely criticised 
edition of Bernardakis contains both new manuscript-readings and excellent 
scholarship, but such a brief and confused apparatus criticus that it is next 
to impossible to discover the sources of his text.® 

There have been no special editions of the Aetia Romana or the Aetta 
Graeca. 


IV. PREVIOUS STUDIES OF THE MANUSCRIPTS 
OF THE MORALIA 


Critical editions of single essays of the Moralia have not been numerous; 
to the best of my knowledge, in not more than seven has the endeavour 
been made to secure complete collations. I shall cite from these only where 
they have a direct bearing on the manuscript-tradition of the Aetia Romana 
et Graeca. 

Berthold Miiller in 1873 edited 77,-.de animae procreatione in Timaeo, 
from eight manuscripts, Paris. 1672, 1042, 1675, an Oxoniensis,! Marc. 
184, 187, and Laur. 70, 5. An epitome of 77 he found in Paris. 1672 and 
1675 also; the epitome alone in A, V, F2, F3, Marc. class IV, cod. 1, Laur. 
80, 22; 80, 30; 59, 1; 85,9. Miiller made one very curious error; he obtained 
a list of the essays in A but not in the order in which they occur in A, and 

81911: 80-84. 

® Translations play a negligible part in the tradition of the Moralia. Treu, 1889: 618, 
declares that the Latin translation of R. Regius, 1507, was made from a Corpus-manuscript; 
the “Romane Questions” of Philemon Holland, London, 1607, re-edited by F. B. Jevons 
in 1892, are translated so freely that I am convinced they have no value for the text. Wytten- 
bach has a full discussion of translations in his preface, p. xlvi. 

1 Quoted from Wyttenbach, vol. 1, p. cl: Codex scriptus—Collegii Corporis Christi. Hahn, 
p. 30, repeats. 


18 PLUTARCH’S AETIA GRAECA AND AETIA ROMANA [266 


naturally he was unable to understand why Wyttenbach believed E was a 
copy of A. The existence of a thirteenth century Corpus was clear to him, 
and from the order of contents he added F2, F3, Paris. 1955, and Laur. 80, 
22, with which V agrees exactly, to the family derived from the original of 
this Corpus, whose most prominent member is E. This was the beginning 
of modern textual criticism of the Moralza. 

At this same time Treu was attacking many problems concerning 
Plutarch and periodically reporting new material on manuscripts. In 
1889, S. C. Larsen after an excellent summary of previous text-critical work 
on the Moralia made an interesting but sweeping statement :— De codicibus 
gui praecipuam aliquam utilitatem habere videntur vel vetustate excellunt, 
hi sunt fere: A, E, Paris. 1675, 1955, 1956, 1957; Vinob. 129, olim 73; 
148, olim 72; Mediol. Ambr. C. 126 inf., C. 195 inf., M 82 sup.; Venets 
Marc. 249, 250, 511; Flor. Riccard. 45. Yet even these have many lacunae 
and many common errors throughout. The archetype, therefore, was not 
a parchment one, as Duebner’ thought, the deterioration of which might 
explain the loss of the first and last pages but could not account for lacunae 
scattered through the text, but a papyrus codex, short-lived and fragile. 
The transfer from papyrus to parchment occurred in general according to 
Birt in the fourth to the sixth centuries, and at some time in this period, 
probably s.v or vi, a parchment copy of the Moralia was made from 
faded and mutilated papyrus. Errors beget errors and many accumulated 
through conjecture and carelessness, especially from the similarity of. 
uncial letters. Since all present-day manuscripts go back to this one 
codex, itself in wretched condition, Larsen’s guide for the readings which 
he suggests is not any one manuscript but reason; he tried to learn what 
Plutarch had said and then to emend in a way that would explain the 
cause of the existing error. 

After the edition of Bernardakis was received so unfavorably, von 
Wilamowitz and Treu encouraged Paton to make a critical edition of 
68, 69 and 72, the three Pythian dialogues, which he published in 1893. I 
have substituted my own sigla as I shall do in all similar cases. 


2 Vol. 2, p. ii. 


267] PLUTARCH’S AETIA GRAECA AND AETIA -ROMANA 19 


¢ is the archetype of the Planudean Corpus, very like Paris. 1967, m1; 
after it was interpolated, the codex-source of the Aldine edition, 7, and 6, 
sources of R2 and E, were immediately copied; { suffered from the hand 
of a corrector and then A and R1 were copied. R3 is included among the 
Corpus-manuscripts: Continet scripta Corporis Planudei sed aliter ordinata. 

The edition of de cupiditate divitiarum by Paton in 1895 I have not been 
able to buy or borrow; von Wilamowitz? reviewed it, but in the review 
there is rather more von Wilamowitz than Paton so that I am unable to 
quote Paton’s conclusions. 

Weil and Reinach in 1900 edited 39, Plutarch’s very interesting essay 
on music. The manuscripts fall into two classes, miscellaneous collections 
of various authors on music and the usual Plutarch-manuscripts. The 
latter class contains A, E, F2, F3, R2, R3, V and R1 which was known only 
from the 1620 edition of Wechel, published at Frankfort. Reinach gives 
two stemmata, one for each class. This does not mean two recensions, but 
two lines of tradition from a single source, for all the oldest manuscripts— 
“chefs de famille’—are descended through one or at most two inter- 
mediaries from a single archetype. In the stemma quoted, the omission of 
R1 is natural since it was not known at first hand; that of M is unfortunate. 
The common archetype had a very corrupt text with every imaginable type 
of error, substitution of familiar for rare words, repetition of syllables, 
omissions, misspellings, etc. Reinach found three reasons for this con- 
fusion:—1, change in pronunciation, (especially itacism), e.g. ENATON for 
éva trav, elrep, for Hmep; 2, similarity of majuscule letters, OCOC, AAA, 
HA, ['TII, NHU, e.g. STPO@HN for 2 TPOPAN; 3, similarity of minuscule 
letters, e.g. rovrows for rabrats, dederyuevou for dederypyévor.* 

Examples of this third class, while not numerous, give ground for the 
belief that the archetype was written in minuscule and cannot on that 


( ARCHETYPUS ?) 


( FILIUS ARCHETYPI ) 


R2 R3 


— > 


F2 


8 1896. V F3 


‘TI have omitted from this stemma all manuscripts that do not contain 62. 


20 PLUTARCH’S AETIA GRAECA AND AETIA ROMANA [268 


account be earlier than the ninth century. On the other hand, these errors 
are so few that there cannot have been an intermediary between this 
minuscule archetype and its majuscule prototype. Reinach dates the 
archetype, then, s.1x/x, the period of the renaissance of scientific studies 
in Byzantium, without comment on Larsen’s theory. 


ARCHETYPUS 


IS CRB oe 
AEF2ZR2L M V F3 RIR3 Ci Fa oe 


Demoulin in 1904 collated twenty-two manuscripts of 31, the Banquet 
of the Seven Wise Men, and drew up the following stemma. | 
In this stemma P=Pal. 153, s. XII;C=Par. 2076, s. XV;F=Ambr. C. 
195, s. XII;Z=Harl. 5692, s. XV. 

The y group does not contain 62 in any of its representatives and De- 
moulin pays little attention to it, after saying that it is closer to 6 than to 
a, and since late derivatives of the three groups are of no importance here I 
have omitted them. In seventy-four differences between a and B, he 
declares that sixty-six correct readings are found in the 8 group against 
eight in the a. Consequently, in constituting the text of 31, the best 
representative of the 6 group, P, must be followed, correcting from F which 
appears to go back to the same source and from the Planudean group. If 
it is permissible to draw inferences from this study for others, F will serve 
editors as the basis of the text where P is not preserved, and conjecture 
must remedy faults dating back to an archetype, as Larsen estimated, of 
the sixth century. 

On the evidence published, Demoulin’s stemma is not altogether 
satisfactory. He gives the eighty-seven most characteristic readings from 
which he formed his groups, a, 8 and y, and these seem unquestionable, 
but within the groups there is room for doubt. Wegehaupt has a some- 
what fuller criticism of this stemma in Philologus, 1905:394. 

In the same year, Victor Hahn made a very useful contribution in his 
Quaestiones Selectae. He gives first a list of manuscripts of Plutarch, 
two hundred and forty in all, with a brief description of each, order of 
contents, references to authors who have used them and to library cata- 
logues. He ventures a stemma of manuscripts of independent value based 
on the age of the manuscript, the order of content and previous studies, 
knowing well enough that he is far from saying the final word on the 


269] PLUTARCH’S AETIA GRAECA AND AETIA ROMANA 21 


subject. He then discusses certain groups of manuscripts which were 
probably transmitted as units in the tradition, and closes with a complete 
collation of Vindob. 129. Wegehaupt,° however, says that this is untrust- 
worthy. 

In 1906 Wegehaupt, after a journey through Italian libraries, published 
a somewhat similar list of manuscripts of Plutarch, describing important 
manuscripts in some detail but omitting those containing no more than one 
essay which Hahn includes. He found several, Ottob. 286, Laur. Redi® 
110, Vat. 1009, 1010, 1012 etc., that had escaped Hahn’s compilation from 
catalogues. In 1909 Wegehaupt made an examination of the Planudean 
Corpus on evidence from essays 20 and 28; in 1911 he published the text 
of 20 with a full apparatus criticus. The large number of manuscripts in 
this case, thirty-five, including V, R2, R3, M, W, A, E, F2, as well as 
their complicated history, forbade a stemma in spite of the fact that their 
common archetype was an uncial codex not earlier than s.1x or x. M is 
the oldest of the Planudean Corpus and derived in this part from Mose. 1; 
W in 20 shows no clear relationship to any other manuscript although in 
28 it clearly came from the same archetype as M, but is closer to Brux. 
18967 and the Aldine than to any others. A, E, R3 and R2 from which 
V and F2 are derived, are independent carefully-written members of the 
Planudean Corpus. Manuscripts of Plutarch of the eleventh to the 
fourteenth centuries, he adds, demonstrate the first law of the period, that 
a codex must be readable. 7 

Behr in 1911 determined the value of thirty-eight manuscripts for the 
text of 2, de educatione puerorum, and felt justified in omitting eleven late 
manuscripts. His collations revealed three groups which he calls W, V, 
and U, that of the Planudean Corpus, which includes V, R2, R3, M, F2, 
A, and E; all these except V and F2 are more or less independently derived 
from acommon archetype. Behr’s criticism of theoretical views and A and 
E, I have stated under E in the chapter on manuscripts. None of the 
members of the W and V groups contains 62. 

The U group is derived from one of the W group which makes its 
textual value negligible. The V group, slightly younger than the W, has 
a complete and readable text and Behr strongly suspects that this is due 
to emendation but yet he cannot prove that the eighth or ninth century 
archetype of the W and U groups is also the archetype of the V group. 

One fact that Wegehaupt emphasised should be repeated here. The 
direct derivation of one essay in one codex from a second does not mean 
that the same condition will necessarily exist for another essay in the same 

51911: 148. 

® sic 1906:30. See Rostagno and Festa, Studi Italiani di Filologia Classica, vol. 1, 
1893, Appendix: Redi, 15, 87, 110 ex monasteria Angelorum; the Statistica delle Biblioteche, 


Part 1, vol. 1, 1893, p. 35, adds that the Laurentian Library received in 1820 “Volumi 
228 di manoscritti Rediani, del Bali Franc. Saverio Redi.” 


22 PLUTARCH’S AETIA GRAECA AND AETIA ROMANA [270 


two codices. In other words not a single manuscript for any essay of 
Plutarch can be discarded without collation, with the possible exception 
of late manuscripts of the Planudean Corpus. The reason for this lies in 
the confused history of the manuscripts; the order of contents, except for 
the Corpus, reveals the greatest variety, and the fact, unfortunate for the 
editor, that the scribes of extant manuscripts selected, omitted, and 
rearranged essays as they would, adding, completing and correcting from 
more than one source. This has led to the assumption that no Corpus 
existed before the so-called Planudean of the thirteenth century. 


V. WEGEHAUPT’S GROUP THEORY 


Every study of manuscripts except that of Behr for 2 has indicated 
a common archetype; on the other hand we have no trace of a complete 
Corpus before the end of the thirteenth century. The only explanation 
of this apparent paradox is that a number of groups of essays or of single 
essays were in existence sometime before the ninth century which were 
destined, individually and alone, to become the respective archetypes of our 
present manuscripts. The discovery of these units would be a distinct 
advance in our knowledge of the history and method of composition of our 
manuscripts and their relationships. 

The Vitae formed one such group; the true Ethica, 1-21, another.! 
Von Wilamowitz suggested 40-42 and 43-50 as others.?, Hahn took up this 
question in 1905; but as Wegehaupt in that and the following year went 
into the subject more elaborately, I shall confine myself to the theory 
of the latter. He finds six groups, not always mutually exclusive, for 
which the evidence varies decidedly: A, 1-21; B, 22-42; C, 28, 35, 30 and 
29, 34, 58 to which are often added 36, 52, 31 and 65; D, 43-50, often with 
41, 42, 51, 54, 55; E,? 56, 57, 65, 64, 67, 31; F, 56-59, really two groups, 58-61 
and 68, 69, 66. Hahn as far as he goes agrees strikingly with Wegehaupt. 
For 70-77 see Treu, 1881:1, and Wegehaupt 1905:306 who objects to 
Treu’s theory. 62 is included in the rather loose group F; since so many of 
the manuscripts containing 62 belong to the Planudean Corpus there is 
little evidence for assigning it a more definite association. 


1See Paton, 1893: 1, and Wegehaupt, 1905: 397. 

21896: 328. 

’ Group E is supported by three manuscripts only, of which one is R3; later Wegehaupt 
admitted that R3 belonged to the Corpus, which would automatically remove it from this 
group. 


PART II 
FOREWORD 


The purpose of this study is to determine the manuscript-tradition of 
the Aetta Romana and Aetia Graeca and by that means to contribute 
to the manuscript-tradition of the Moralia asa whole. For this secondary 
purpose, very definite limits are set by the manuscripts themselves. 
M, A, E, R1, R2, R3, F2, F3, V, P (Ang.), T, and L, twelve of the total 
fourteen, are known to belong to the Planudean Corpus; W and F1 are 
manuscripts of the fifteenth century which Wegehaupt from a study of 
28, cum principibus philosophandum esse, declared to be derived from 
the sources of the Corpus. The problem becomes for the most part one 
of the interrelationships of this group of manuscripts, since no certain 
example of the Pre-Planudean text has been preserved. Treu’s advice— 
futuro Moralium editort multo magis eorum singulorum codicum qui unum 
vel pauca tantum Moralia tradunt, rationem habendam esse quam eorum qui 
plurima in unum corpus redegerint?—cannot be followed. 

My first step was to make a thorough and I hope accurate collation 
of all manuscripts of the Aetia Graeca, since I expected in this way to be 
able to omit certain manuscripts in collating the longer Aetia Romana. 
The two essays are found together in every case, but as a precaution I 
also collated all manuscripts for the first twenty chapters of the Aetza 
Romana. After that, since my results agreed with those of former studies, 
I discarded R1, F2, F3, V, P, T, and L, continuing M, A, E, R2, R3, F1, and 
W to the end. The manuscripts were collated to the text of Bernardakis, 
of which the Aetia Romana occupy pages 250 to 320 and the Aetia Graeca 
pages 321 to 353 of the second volume, and readings will be defined by 
reference to page and line of that edition. 

In the columns of readings I have used a dash to indicate an omission, 
and the usual symbol w to represent all manuscripts not otherwise men- 
tioned. Accents are written as they are found in manuscript or edition: 
iota subscripts are generally omitted in the manuscripts, and when a 
common reading is quoted from several manuscripts I have followed the 
usage of the majority, since it seemed unnecessary to be exact in this 
detail. 

In the case of derivatives from extant sources, I have paid little atten- 
tion to lost intervening manuscripts, since these can have no value in 
establishing the text. 


11909: 1038. 
#4871: 12. 


23 


24 PLUTARCH’S AETIA GRAECA AND AETIA ROMANA [272 


I. ARCHETYPE 


All codices of the Aetia Graeca and Aetia Romana are derived from 
a common archetype, but because of their late date—M, the oldest, was 
written c. 1290—little can be known about the archetype except its errors. 
These must have been numerous, since a good number occur in all extant 
manuscripts to-day. I shall give a few examples in illustration. 


Aetia Graeca 


w Text of Bernardakis 
1 mpoxpitovs avipas 322,9 mpoxpitos avdpaow 
2 modbebovov 324,6 totyfoov +L, m2 
3 bavBerav 328,26 ‘Tévrecav 
4 paxivay 329,10 Maxvvay 
5 olvo 35 1y2 olvoy -+-F3 
6 ére Kav Tpbvya S31 hd d0c y’ aTpuyor 
7 peraBodrs 337,4 eva Bonoas 
8 ras alodelas olwvoddas 341,7 aids 62 ‘’Odelas’ ofoy ddéas 
9 pecorddews (—rrdd\ews E) 345,15 LNT poTroN ews 
10 KxarexvAtcOnoav JOSy2 KaTnurtobnoav 


Aetia Romana 


w Text of Bernardakis 

1 kadovd "250543 & ou 

2 moXdod (7o\A— E) 254,7 ToANaxod 

3— 259,10 oikx +A, m2 

4 — 276,14 Ln 

5 avriortxos haKkwv 280,11-12 "Avriotios AaPéwv 
6 Thos 282 ,5 "Arnuos 

7 &xpnorov 284,3 XpnoTov 

8 olua 286,13 ot yey 

9 kal cracrov 299,1 K\totas TOV 
10 Bépprov 313,14 T .Géprov 


Elision is irregularly observed in the single codices, which, however, 
agree remarkably in their usage in the case of a given word in the text. 
All, for example, have eira obrws, 321,10, dé duvfuoves, 322,11, rapa apxdcr, 
322,15, and. dy;,327/ 3. 


M3. TITLE 


The one title for the combined essays which is attested by all manu- 
scripts is KEPAAAION KATAIPAGH, but some of the manuscripts add 
subtitles of a more explanatory nature. W adds IIpo8\juara Wdovrdpxov, 
in a hand that is not that of the text. A with R3, F3, L, and R1, but not 


273] PLUTARCH’S AETIA GRAECA AND AETIA ROMANA 25 


with M, E, R2, V, F2, P, T, has waka which in A is probably the contri- 
bution of a second hand. F1 and W add an index of the first nineteen of the 
Aetia Romana, listing the introductory questions, which are followed by the 
word apx7; this list has minor differences from the text that follows, and was 
clearly in the common archetype of the two manuscripts. M,A, E, R2, 
R3, F2, V, and L have the title é\Anvixa for the Aetia Graeca, which F3, 
F1,and P omit; W again in a hand that is not that of the text writes in full 
TIpo8\nuara Ldourapxov. R1 has a line and a half of preface that is illegible. 

R2, R3, F2, F3, Fi, W, and P mark the end of the essay merely with a 
blank space or a decorative line across the page, but M, A, E, V, and R1 
repeat the general title KEBAAAION KATATPA®H: L closes with a heart- 
felt TédXos 7G 0€G eloTn Xapts. 

What the exact title of the two essays should be, I confess I do not 
know. I have used Aetia Graeca and Aetia Romana, which is accurate 
enough descriptively, in preference to the awkward and meaningless 
KE@AAATION KATATPA®H. In connection with this phrase, the indices 
which F1 and W derived froma lost archetype, H, raise a certain doubt. I 
assume that this index in H is an abbreviation of an earlier complete index, 
which seems to me more in accord with the general history of manuscript- 
tradition, than that it should have been begun and not finished. The 
text of F1 and W, moreover, while not in the condition of tenth-century 
manuscripts of Plutarch, does not seem to echo a comparatively recent 
archetype, so elaborate in composition as to include the addition of indices. 
The archetype of H and M, therefore, on a second assumption may have 
contained the index in the form in which it is at present in Fi and W. 
Does then KE@AAAION KATATPA®H refer to the whole essay or merely 
to the index? If it refers to the latter, the omission of the partial index and 
the keeping of the title in M and its derivatives is a recognisable possibility. 
Furthermore, the phrase KE®AAAION KATATPA®H suggests rather 
the librarian than the author, but since neither F1 nor W contains 38, the 
Aetia Platonica, or 50, the Aetia Physica, which might furnish parallels, and 
since the sub-titles pwuaud and é\Anvixa are not too well attested, I believe 
that it is impossible to discover from the present data what the title should 
be. 


III. R2, F2, V, P, ANG., AND T 


Each of the three codices R2 (s. xm), F2 (s. xiv), and V(s. xv), 
contains the Moralia 1-69, 78 in the order of E. P (s. xiv) according 
to Omont contains 61, 63-69, 78 frg., but as a matter of fact 61 is not 
complete and it also contains almost all of 62. The missing pages form 
manuscript 63 of the Angelican Library in Rome, so that P and Ang. may 
properly be considered one. T has thirty-two of the seventy essays in a 
different order and must be judged entirely on its text. 


[274 


26 PLUTARCH’S AETIA GRAECA AND AETIA ROMANA 
These five codices have common peculiar readings as follows:! 
Aetia Graeca 
R2, F2; Vest @) 
1 7d 324,12 TO 
2 dvagayn 324,16 dtaguyn 
Se 326,2 ovca 
4 aivaor 326,19 aiveraou OF alvatacu 
5 yeyovacw aivaouw aiverdvev 326,20 yeyovac. aiveravwv 
6 ivaxéwy 327,16 ivaxrewy (ivaxaewy, E) 
7 dveppuKoTwr 332,21 OveppunKOTwv 
8 dapryious 334,5 Gpyetous 
9 idaxiav 335,1 aifaxiay (iOaxnoiay, E) 
10 Kaféxacrov 336,18 kal’ éxacrov 
11 érepetau 357,22 ET OLpErat 
12 wepirupodguoy 338,1 wept TO Tupadguoy (Tepi TUpadg- 
tov, E) 
13 — 338,8 TOV 
14 épavres 345 ,23 OpavrTes 
15 dpaBov 346,25 dpoBov 
16 — 346,25 apos (eis, E) 
17 dm’ édevdepors 348,21 dredevbepors 
18 dgocwivro+L,R1 S215;15 a&pwaovvTo 
19 BovdAopeévors ++ W 351,18 BovXevopevots 
Aetia Romana (Chapters 1-20) 
1 mcrevovres+R1 256,3 TLoTEVOVTOS 
2 pap 260,22 baprvos 
3 peTatpomas 261,26 peTa TpOT AS 
cf. gépwv > yépovR2,P,T; pepwy F2 254,18 gepov (+V) 


R22 IV eR Ee ) 
1— Hs n 

2 ot (éepets) 23,0 — 

3 évvearnploas 325,6 évvaeTtnploas 
4 rH 326,23 Tov 

5— 328,18 kal 

6 xapBins 328,19 KaBuns 


R2, F2, V, P, and T have also a number of common readings, peculiar 
to them and to E? 


Aetia Graeca 


1 Several of these readings, unimportant individually, lend weight by their numbers. 


21 shall discuss E in a later chapter. 


275] PLUTARCH’S AETIA GRAECA AND AETIA ROMANA 27 


7 oyxnoou 329,13 OYXNOTOU , 

8 rpirodicKovvor 330,1 TpiTodlaKor OF TpiTodtoKxator (A) 
9 pvnuovevodueva 334,19 bvnuovevOnodueva 

10 eis 334,26 és 

11 ¢udrcaciors 342,6 gyAtaciots 

12 gvyovtwr 342,23 guyévra 

13 — 334,10 ey 

14 — 345,1-2 ws to ade (eleven words) 


Aetia Romana 


In the margin at the beginning of the Aetia Romana in M, A, E, R2, F2, 
and V, but not in P-Ang. nor in T, is the numeral ZH. 


1 dy 250,12 Kap 

2 dccaTeEp o0a;Le docamep OF boaTeEp 
3— 254,4 obv 

4 pu 5’&dXo noel un bv’GAXo 

5 cuvotKety 257,14 TUVOLKEL@Y 

6 dvwpev 258,4 bvwpe 

V— 258,20 TUs 

8 éxpry 259,2 éEqjv 

9 dobdAnv 260,1 dovAov 


The relationship of R2, F2, P, V, and T is obviously close, and since 
editors of Plutarch have agreed that R2, the oldest, is the parent of this 
family it seemed useless to attempt to determine accurately the inter- 
relationships of the derivatives. An argument for this parentage from my 
collations is the fact that R2 differs from the other four taken as a unit in 
but six places: Aetia Graeca, todordv (for 7d dourdv), 321, 13, and the 
omission of v-movable in dé:xodow, 322, 3, raow, 325, 26, Pbovow, 327, 23, 
mepukanvrrovow, 327, 24; Aetia Romana, dyov (sic), 251, 13, all of which 
may easily have been automatically corrected in the later manuscripts; 
and secondly, the fact that there are no readings in F2, P, V, or T which 
cannot have come from R2. In case of the discovery of new manu- 
script-material, I believe that the readings quoted above are sufficient to 
determine relationship to this family; lists of the errors in the individual 
manuscripts would require more space than their value warrants. 


BG er a DR 


The fourteenth in the list of peculiar readings of R2, F2,V, P, T, and E 
is an omission of eleven words, 345, 1-2: as 6 xKnpvé dveire THY viKdoay 
altos dvateivas tiv deEvav Ge. These words form one complete line of A, 
and their omission in R2 suggested the possibility of deriving R2 from A. 


28 PLUTARCH’S AETIA GRAECA AND AETIA ROMANA [276 


A has been corrected by two hands and I am inclined to believe by a 
third also, although it is difficult from photographs to distinguish the 
various hands accurately. The hand of the text has done a certain amount 
of correcting; a second, much smaller and finer, has added an occasional 
letter or article, e.g. p to ravayaious, 343, 25; a second sigma to xvwotots, 
349, 18; of, 349, 11, which Bernardakis has emended to at. Finally a third 
hand, if I am not mistaken, later than the others, has made a number of 
minor corrections and, it may be, a few of importance. The result of the 
corrections of these three hands is that there are no lacunae in A to dis- 
qualify it as the prototype of R2. 

One’s first impression of A is that it is a handsome and fairly legible 
codex, but in this latter quality it is deceptive. Any single word can be 
read without difficulty; on the other hand, continuous reading in the way 
that the copyist must have read is by no means easy. There are a good 
number of abbreviations, generally in word-endings, but the chief difficulty 
lies in the particular style of writing, such that the slightest inattention in 
copying would be certain to result in error. 

The readings of R2, F2, V, P, T, and of R2, F2, V, P, T, and E, quoted 
in the last chapter must, if R2 is derived from A, be errors of R2, since E on 
other groundsis out of the question. Little can be said of the first list; 15 is 
a confusion of the ligatures ep andop; 16 was caused by the cursive beta, 
written very much like a mu. In the secondlist, 5and6area part of the phrase 
tovrou (kal) Ka (uw) Bins; Trovrov is abbreviated in each syllable in A and R2, 
and the shape of the letter beta, unusually large, is identical in both. 
In 8 in A, the final stroke of the third iota curls up and over making 
the circumflex accent over the alpha-iota; the final iota is enclosed in a 
large omicron which touches the line connecting the previous iota with the 
circumflex accent. If read slowly it is clear, but R2 is not a carefully copied 
manuscript. 12, gvyévrwy, is probably the result of the alpha in A which 
with a long final upstroke makes a very fair omega; the nu would have been 
added unconsciously. The others are the inevitable accompaniment of 
every stage in the descent of manuscripts. | 

The remaining differences between A and R2 in the Aetia Graeca are 
these: 

Peculiar readings of A: cuBanrety (sic), 321, 5—6; unde, (ude, w,) 327, 12; 
to (sic), 342, 10. 


A R2+ wa 
1 peoonviovs+M,F2,L,R1 322,18-19 peonvious 
2 7o>Tas* gas 1, Kl 329,18 TO. 
3 peyapidas (in rasura) +L, R1 329,18 607d (dords, Bern.) 
4 roraparav+M,F1,P 330,6 TO TapaTav 


5 ruplav+M,F1,W,L,R3,R1 331,10 Tpuylav 
6 dv (sic) +M, F1, W 341,20 ay 


277) PLUTARCH’S AETIA GRAECA AND AETIA ROMANA 29 


A R2+w 
7 tThs>Tas ;Tras L 342,8 Ths 
8 da (sic)--W,F2,R3,R1 342,26. a 
9 wédas (€ in rasura)+L,R1 3518 tatdas (mratéas >édas, M) 


10 raidwy>resGvt+M; reidy L 351,19 Tatowy 


Numbers 2, 6,8, and 9 are corrections which were made, I believe, after 
R2 was copied. 5 is the only other reading of any importance. rupiay, a 
vox nthili, occurs in a hexameter verse quoted for the second time, where 
tpvylay appears uniformly in the first quotation. Here the copyist of R2 
made consciously or unconsciously his second and last correction in the 
Aetia Graeca; the first is the addition of of, 323, 1. 

The differences between A and R2 are naturally greater in number in 
the Aetia Romana and to avoid useless repetition I shall give the readings 
of A and R2 only, noting instances where E agrees with R2 against A. In 
addition to those in the preceding chapter they are as follows: 


ae R2 

1 toreporérpous (r, m2) 253,18 borepotépous-+ E 

2 pr dv’adAXo (c, m2) 255516 un 6’aNAo+ E 

3 ab’tov>atrol 256,7 avtov-+E 

4 évwpeu (u, m2) 258,4 dvwpev (ev in abbreviation) +E 
5 tots>rats (?) 258,21 Tots 

6 Aarivor 262,21 Aarivor 

7 tpt 264,10 Tpl 

8 amdcats 265,19 amTacas 

9 pnvadv 265,20 povay 
10 orw (after w one letter has 265,23 ottrws tw 

been erased) 

11 otoy 265,24 olwy 
12 éxeivns 266,15 éxelvous 
13 pm dé é£cévar 269,19 py dveEcevar-+ E 
14 ewe7 Lids hs Anh 
15 diOvor 274,15 ALOcvor 
16 énpadorgety 276,25 Evpado.vety + E 
17 évrexoboas 276,28 évTnKovo as 
18 — 277,6 kai-+E 
19 rpburav 277,11 roluvnv-+E (corrected) 
20 ovadéptos 278,21 ovadd€ptos-+ E 
21 76 279,7 —+E 
22 émvotpégn 280,16 éristpoyn (émtotpogny, E) 
23 vavTirias 281,19 vauTnAtas 
24 srotvipor 283,9 TOVLLOL 


25 dvédol to de 284,14 —to—/(nine words) +E (éu.) 


30 PLUTARCH’S AETIA GRAECA AND AETIA ROMANA [278 


A R2 
26 iavovaptats 285,6 lavvovaptats + E 
27 dvbivats 285,28 avOnvars (dvOeivas, E) 
28 elvar 288,13 —+E 
29 éxarn 291,23 EKAOTN 
30 govpkigepas 292,26 oupKLvepas 
31 rijs PAS A S| TOUS 
32 evar 293,23 —+E 
33 BpeBeu 294,26 BpevBeu+ E 
34 Karamaretabat 299,27 KaTaretabar 
35 yap 301,11 dé 
36 dpyodtairepov > apyoduwrepov 304,5 apmodratrepov + FE 
37 ddpart 304,24 dwpart 
38 abrdv 305,7 avtav-+ E 
39 airos 306,6 av’té6u +E 
40 zroXvovxos 306,11 moNvovxos 
41 — 307,16 Tis +E 
42 rovs 307,26 Tas 
43 KxareBiBatov 308,18 KareBiavov-+E 
44 xpatos 309,12 Kparos>kpatous (Kpartous, E) 
45 76 309,25 — 
46 xuvav 309,26 XNVvav 
47 Xrxeviov 315,9 Ackuvlou+ E 
48 wvouakev 316,6 aovouwacev + E 
49 ons 316,10 oKnyes 
SO rijs 317,5 TOLS 
51 7 319,26 oi tw 


This list appears much more formidable on the printed page on account 
of its length than it really is in the manuscripts. It is not worth while to 
examine in detail each pair of readings, so I shall merely point out certain 
recurrent types of error. A was corrected after R2 was copied in numbers 
1, 2,4,5 (2), 10, and 35; there are five omissions, each of one word except 
number 24 of nine words, which was caused by éyu. (to adopt Mr. A.C. Clark’s 
convenient abbreviation) and for which A is a reasonable source, although 
the omission in this case is not of one complete line; in seventeen of the pairs 
the difference lies in one letter and in three the difference is in accent only; 
numbers 13, 32, 33, 42, and 48 are self-explanatory. In fact, numbers 18 
and 51 in sixty pages of Greek are the only two readings that cannot be 
easily explained, and to offset these are the readings xvieoOau (xvecOa, E), 
286, 9, peculiar to A and R2, and the dittography roy rov 313, 12, in A which 
is repeated in R2. The data justify the conclusion, I believe, that R2 in 
the Aetia Graeca and Romana is derived from A. 


279] PLUTARCH’S AETIA GRAECA AND AETIA ROMANA 31 


The remaining question, always a difficult one, is whether R2 is a direct 
copy of A,or whether there was an intermediate manuscript, now lost, which 
would account for a number of errors at present assignable to R2. It is 
true that A does not in every case show the cause of the error, but yet the 
readings where the hypothesis of an intermediary would make an explana- 
tion easier are very few, since the majority of the errors are omissions and 
simple misspellings. On the whole, I do not believe that it is necessary to 
hypothesize a lost manuscript, and in either case the result for text-critical 
purposes is the same. 


V. MANDA 


M is the one manuscript of the Aetia Graeca and Romana to show 
traces of the text with which the Byzantine scholars of the thirteenth 
century had to deal. It has been systematically edited, fortunately in 
such a way that the first reading is often decipherable, so that it came to be 
a connecting link between the Pre-Planudean and the Planudean texts. 
Wegehaupt! realized this and believed that it was the oldest manuscript of 
the Planudean-Corpus, a cousin, at least, of A, E, and R2. The order of 
contents of the four was a strong argument for their relationship and no 
one has doubted that they belong to one family. 

In the Aetia Graeca two common lacunae unite A and M, one of seven- 
teen words, Anorpixdv, 338, 12—iBaxjowos, 14, (6u.), and a second of one 
word, émiBAaés, 339, 22; in each case a second hand has added the omitted 
words in the margin of A, while E and R2 include them in their texts. 
A third lacuna of A, d0ev, 326, 23—Baortéa, 25, not due to du., is more 
important because these words form one line of M. The second hand has 
again corrected A in the upper margin without variation from the text of M. 
Starting with this strong hint, I made a further comparison of A and M and 
found that the differences were largely caused by corrections in A. The 
source of the first mentioned correction of seventeen words, which must 
have been made shortly after A was copied, 1296, if, as I believe, R2 of the 
thirteenth century is a derivative of A, was probably another manuscript, 
unless an extraordinarily clever scholar in 1296 realised the danger lurking 
in 6u. and emended brilliantly and boldly. If another manuscript was the 
source here, the corrections in A must be considered seriously. 

Differences between A and M in the Aetia Graeca are these?: 


M A 
1 Tov 322,4 TOV >THY 
2 cod\wv eee) ao\wy > addots 
3 madatacs 322,24 Tadaas 
4 op eae 7d (vy erased) 
11909: 1039. 


2 E agrees with M in 6, 14, 31, 35, and 36; with A in 18, 29, and 30. 


32 


PLUTARCH’S AETIA GRAECA AND AETIA ROMANA [280 


M 


pev (corr. to ?) ws pev 


TOU 
teulorevoev 
kat (m2) 

T pOONKV 
xapt\av 
xapiiav 

mT atotoy 

déov 


TOV 
xrifew 
Ta 60Ta 


wip’ 
TOUS 
Bpavpwvos 


puEapxayevas 
avamirnoky 
a&pdavov 

ératplac 

éTavplay 
aVTEKANELY 

THS 

dvoma. 

6 (m2), (E¥vooros) 
bé 

6 

&\Aws Kal 
Tapakadvrrecbar 
mada 


éfexeWev 
matoas > édas 
Tepl 

Oparrav 


323,21 
323,24 
324,9 
324,12 
325,3 
326,6 
326,18 
326,21 
326,25 


328,7 
328,21 
329,18 


331,10 
332,8 
332,9 
333,3 
333,24 
336,5 
336,22 
337,22 
337,25 
338,5 
342,8 
342,18 
342,26 
344.1 
344,18 
348.6 
348,10 
349.8 
349,11 
349,21 
350,3 
351,3 
352,12 
352,20 


A 
bv ws wey 
eeuiorevev 
Kat 
Tpoonkwy > TpocolKwy 
xépthav (mark of erasure overt) 
xdpiray (accent erased over t) 
medlov (€ in rasura) 
dé (erasure; this is part of the 
addition by m2.) 
xriter (vy, m2) 
ras peyaploas (im rasura), (rds 
aordas Bern.) 


wiv’ >wev’ 


os 


Bappwvos 

oi (m2) 

préapyevas 

EVAPLULYNOKELY 

a&patvov 

érarpetar (er im rasura) 
ératpelav (er in rasura) 
avreykanety (y, m2) 

THS > TAS 

6 vouos (mark of erasure over o?) 


_ 


&ddws re kat (re, m2) 
mepixadvrrrecOar (rept in rasura) 
medla (€ in rasura) 

oi (m2), (aé Bern.) 

n 

ékédevoev (k>1 ; evo in rasura) 
TEOaS 

Tepl>Tapa 

Opaxav (k im rasura) 


An analysis of these differences discloses the fact that twenty-three, 
1, 2, 4, 9—13, 16, 17, 20, 24—27, 32—35, 3740 are caused by corrections 
in A, with 28 as an uncertain twenty-fourth. 36 seems to bean addition by 
the first hand in A, and 8 may be the same, since A omits 29, a possible cor- 


281] PLUTARCH’S AETIA GRAECA AND AETIA ROMANA 33 


rection after the copying of A. 5, corrected in M, has an epsilon underfa 
blur. 

This reduces the differences to twelve. 6, 14, 18 and 31 are omissions 
by A of the article and 30 of 6¢. In 31, M writes the phrase 6’6 ais in such 
a way that the final stroke of the delta comes down and touches the omi- 
cron; 6’6>6é was an easy transition. 3 is a simple correction and I suspect 
23 is the same; 7, 15 and 21 are common types of error; 19 is probably a 
careless error since Varro has not been mentioned for some time. 

In the Aetia Romana as in the Aetia Graeca the majority of differences 
between M and A are due to corrections in A. The list follows: 


M A 
1 peprfdpuevos 251,8 peptCOuevov 
2 cepdviov Zoesa2 oepotiov 
3 -yeyovou 2558 yeyover 
4 torepordpous 253,18 boreporotpuous (rT, m2) 
5 torepordyous 253,20 boTeporétpuous (r, m2) 
6 avayKny 255,9 avayKn 
7 70 256,21 TO>TO 
8 dvwper (dv->dp-) 258,3 Svwpe 
9 — 259,10 ox (m2) 
10 vouds 259,13 vouas>vouuds (The same cor- 
rection has been made in 261,21; 263,22 and 285,9.) 
11 pods 259,15 ™ pos 
12 xatpwreia 259,27 xXEepwvela 
13 S0Ddor 260,1 S0DNov > do0dos (?) 
14 zodvy 260,8 moNvv > TONMY 
15 ardoas 265,19 amrdaoars 
16 ottws 265,23 olrw (a final letter erased) 
17 dvrimadov 266,5 avrimadov > avtimados 
18 dOev 266,12 dbev 
19 kéxpa—rat (ry erased) 267,26 KEKpATNT AL 
20 To 267,26 70 
21 Pulavrov (dulavrov>eiplavrov?) 267,27 evulavrov 
22 GupavAtas 268,24 Onpavrtats (us in rasura) 
23 atova 269,22 atova 
24 (ar ) 
TaXavtov (sic) 270,13 TaNaVTOV 
25 &rpak7pov 270,15 &T PaKkTov 
26 otrws IME OR: ovrw (a final letter erased; cf.16) 
27 guvywv OM he P| guyav 
28 avy 276,28 & uy 


29 f viv 
vovvodvas 278,16 vovvoudivas 


47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 


61 
62 


PLUTARCH’S AETIA GRAECA AND AETIA ROMANA [282 


M 

un € 

Butavrios 279,25 
éyKedevouny 280,12 
Gi pews -ws 281,6 
ATUXETTEPOS 282,7 
dpobcovoKaupos 282,22 
XpnoTayv 200,29 
duéT puBov Za5.15 
KuloKxeoOat 286,9 
Tewvapetwv 287,23 
TOUS 287,23 
TELVAPLOL 287,24 
BovAeverat 289,9 
aaxpwy (vy, m2) 289,11 
mpovoovons 290,22 
év Toddots (TO Snudorov ev 291,11 

ToANots, StC.) 
mer acbat 292,16 
CUVOLTKLT NO 292,21 
eTrepLwpwv (SiC) 295,20 
dvadexrixds (Scddexrov in margin) 297,18 
dvovbérnarov 300,22 
To abro 301,22 
ico 302,13 
te 302,20 
pwyatw 303,17 
Oéas 305,1 
paNiwy 306,2 
aoBnaes 307,13 
deouevy 309722 
ovugopnrol 313,8 
TOV $1312 
6 

KNobBtos 315;7 
Bdedurrépevon 316,22 
of i) B19.06 


A 


But avrcvos 

éyKeNevounv > éyKeNevomevny 

&pews. (two letters erased) 

atuxéorepos (elruxéorepos in 
margin) 

dpovaou aKkavpos 

xXpnoTav >xpnoTor 

ddreT ptBov 

KuleoOae 

Tivaplwv 

TOLs > THs 

mivaptot 

Bobd\er ar 

oaKpo 

Tpocovens 

— (c. nine letters erased) 


meracbat>meravcbar 
CUVOLKLO LQ 

TEPLEWPUWY 

Suadexrixds (SiddeEts in margin) 
a&vovleTnTOV 

TOQUTO 

heyerar (m2 at end of line) 
ov (m2) 

pupatwv 

Geas 

pata 

couBnoets 

dEeouevay 

oupgopyT? > cuugopnrov 

TOV TOV 


KAouBLos 
BdeduTTOpeEvo 


Vn 


q 


These differences average one to the page of Bernardakis’ text; but if the 
corrections of the second hand of A are subtracted, since it is often possible 
to prove that the first hand of A agrees with M, the number is greatly 
reduced. A second hand in M, as in the Aetia Graeca, has made a few 
corrections after A was copied, so that in view of the fact that there are no 


283} PLUTARCH’S AETIA GRAECA AND AETIA ROMANA 35 


serious differences, that A seems to reflect M in many minor points which 
cannot be reproduced except by fac-simile, and that A omits one line of M 
not because of du., I have no doubt that A is a direct copy of M, 


VI. Fi, W, AND M 


The problem in this chapter is the relationship of the fifteenth-century’ 
manuscripts F1 and W, which are unquestionably derived from 4 lost= 
archetype H, to the thirteenth-century M. The order of contefits of W,- 
22-27, 1, 28-33, 20, 34, 3-19, 21, 56-61, 36, 35, 65, 62, 66, 69 and of Ff, #8» 
19, 21, 56-61, 36, 35, 65, 66, 62, 69, 52, 58, 44, 45, 43 can have no logical ex-° 
planation through the grouping of essays on similar subjects, and suggests, 
if anything, the breaking-up more or less at random of the order 1-69 of M. 
Evidence from the texts is ample in quantity to show that H and M are 
closely related, but the precise relationship from this limited comparison 
cannot be determined with certainty. 

First, to prove that F1 is not derived from W nor W from F1, I shall 
give half a dozen of the thirty-nine peculiar characteristics of F1 and of 
the hundred and seventy of W from the Aetia Graeca. 


Fi a 
1—,—, —, —, — Chapters 23, 24, 25, 32, 33} 
2 —to— 327,20—22 Nibw—rodv pev (du.) 
3 els rhv woduw dadte kaTreNorey 321,7 émére KareéNOorev els THY TOY 
4 xepixparous 324,19 X apLtKpaTous 
5 punrpvas 335,20 pnrpuras 
6 maddavol 346,24 Tpaddavol 
W ry 
cate 323,22 Thvikavra Kat 
fas 326,9 aTETENET a 
3 —to— 338,1—3  rdov—xarxideis (du.) 
4 deoxpdrous 324,19 XapiKparous 
5 pnruras 335,25 pnt puras 
6 dnvairar 337,20 dewabrat 


The existence of H is proved by these peculiar readings of F1 and W: 


Aetia Graeca 


Fi, W orH : M and w 
1 karacrabjvat 321,12 KaTaoTHvar 
2 veapdos S23i22 veapets (apos Bern.) 
3 éylyvero 324,4 éylvero 
4 ovv 324,15 “your 


1 These omissions cannot be due to the loss of a page in the prototype and there seems 
to be nothing in their content to cause their excision. 


36 


| ne a ee oe 
ODownnrtanmnPp WDNDrK COO ONTA TB W NH 


bh bo 
No 


BR dD bo 
me Ww 


PLUTARCH’S AETIA GRAECA AND AETIA ROMANA 


Fi, W or H 
elkaote 
“y Wwomevou 
aividvey 
&uguxrlovos 
KaTaoThoar 
ioTLOTO 
wip’ 
yact 
Kacowmatay 
réevynv (constant error) 
a&paov 
avdptos 
€OTL 
dv apepov 
éutroplay 


F1,WorH 
AEXWETOL 
MaKapece 
mT poem Nevo av 


a 


avayKn+w 
dé 

pnbev 
tToO+w 

EXEL 
évdexaTov 


 €veoru 


dbev-+w 
lf 
&\oupyov 
e a 
pwyuddos 
dé 
&TPaKTos 
a&tpaxrov-+w 
4 

caPelywy 
érroupdviov 
& pov 
EV PETIS 

Ud 
a peo Bevo 
Kal 
émrér ov 


M and w 
CWA | elKAoELE 
RPA PY yevomevou 
20,48 aiverdvey 
328,18 and 353,8 duguxrbovos 
329,18 KaTQAoTHVAL 
331,17 eto TLQvTo 
351,19 wiv’ 
332,8 gaol 
334,24 kacowwmalay 
335,26 and chapter 28 révny 
JOG, 22 é&pavou 
551,35 é&vdptos 
340,6 eTL 
345,16 dvapepwv 
349,26 éutropia 


Aetia Romana 


252,14 
253,13 
253,14 
254,9 
255,9 
255,10 
255,24 
256,4 
256,21 
260,13 
261,5 
263,23 
266,12 
267,23 
268,9 
268,15 
270,9 
270,15 
270,19 
276,7 

» 276192 
278,8 
279,3 
279,12 
279,27 


M and w 
) 
Nex eer oe 
PaKaperor 
1 pooeT A€vo av 
avayknvt R1, P 
7 


pndev 

TO 

el Xe 
€vOEKATOV 
év €or 
é0ev 
&oupyov 
pwpdbdos 
&TPAKTOL 
&TPAKT POV 
caBivwv 
Uroupaviov 
ay’ od 
GpETHS 

a peo Bevovoty 


——S 


3 U 


ET ETELOV 


[284 


285] PLUTARCH’S AETIA GRAECA AND AETIA ROMANA 37 


F1, Wor H 
26 tupnvors 
24 —-+w 


28 paxéddovs 
29 révvoua waxeddov 


Fi omits from this point, chapter 56, to 


30 ar’+E 

31 Berobrios 

32 otBbd\Ada 

33 otbev 

34 ré TavTwr 

35 — 

36 KaTetAnupevoy 
37 yevoyuevov 

38 rTovTw 


39 ris 


280,1 
281,6 
284,18 
285,2 


298,19 
301,24 
301,26 
306,27 
307,6 

307,19 
310,17 
310,19 
ta2 

314,27 


M and w 
TUppyvots 
ws (cf. A in preceding chapter) 
pakéAXas 
pakéAXov Tovvoua 
chapter 76. 
én’ 
Boutérvos 
o.Bvd\rd\eELa 
ovdev 
Té— 
kal 
KATELANMMEVOS 
“y Womevov 
TOUTO 


F1 also omits chapters 103, 105 to 112, and since W is so full of peculiar 
errors, nothing can be learned about H from these chapters in W. 

The immediate relationship of H to M follows from these readings, 
peculiar to H and M, which bar F1 and W from any of the later groups 
such as that of R2, F2, V, P, and T. 


H and M 
co\wy 
TOV 
TOU+E 
euiorevoey+ L 


opevOovavres 
Tpoonkwy+ R1 


CONN OH PW DH 
| 


Xapiiayv 
9 rapaovat 
10 déov 
11 rav+E 
12 iv’ 
13 rovs 
14 Bpatpwvos 
15 — 
16 éveyinoev 
17 dvaptprnoKnn +E 
18 éra:piay (F1 omits) 
19 —to — 


322,5 
323,17 
323,24 
3249 
324,12 
324,24 
325,3 
326,6 
326,24 
326,25 
328.7 
331,10 
332,8 
332,9 
333,3 
335,14 
336,5 
337,25 


338,12-14 


Aetia Graeca 


(6) 


codots 

TO 

Heuiorevev 
Kal 
opevdovourres 
7 pocolkwy 
xaptvav 
Tapaovat 


de 


Bappwvos 

ot 

eveyyunoev 

AVAMLUVNOKELV 

ératpelav 

Anorpixdv to Waxhatos (dp.) 


38 PLUTARCH’S AETIA GRAECA AND AETIA ROMANA [286 


H and M w 
20 339,22  émtBdaBes 
21 dvopa 342,18 6 vouos 
22 dé (F1 omits) 344,1 — 
23 6+E 344,18 — 
24 — 348 ,6 Té 
25 mapakadtrrecbat 348,10 WeplKaAUTTETO at 
26 ratdia 349,8 media 
27 — 349,11 of (ai, Bernardakis) 
28. -—— 349,21 n 
29 XAaknrhpa 352,10 AaunThpa 
30 Oparray 352,20 6pakav 

Aelia Romana 
1 gepdrov 252512 oepouviov 
2 yeyovou 253;7 yevyovet 
3 abrod 256,7 avrov Or avTol 
4 vopas OAS Be vouuas This same difference 
occurs also 261,21; 263,22; 285,9. 

5 oddv 260,8 ToNNHY 
6 dvrimadov 266,95 avrimados 

(F1 omits chapters 57 to 76.) 
7 dvovbérnorov 300,22 avovbeTnTov 
Bye 302,13 eyerat 
9 inmoxowyTldwy 305,22 immokowvT oav 
10 BdeduTTOpeEvor 316,22 BdeduTTOpevov 


This, however, is not all the evidence, since corrections in M cover in 
many cases an original reading which agreed with H against w. 


Aetia Graeca 


H 
1 perv ws 323,21 
2 dao, : 324,15 
3 dragtyor 324,16 
4  kparovvtes 324,21 
5 Tilow 325, 
6 ddvoer 328,2 
7 Kepa 329,25 
8  aXnrHpros 334,15 
9 ripmavépiarv 340,9 
10 peracrivat 340,17 
11 &, (F1 omits) 343,26 


12 rpoias 344,7 


M and w 
Mev WS > POS; UNV ws, w 
AaBor>rAaBy 
dtayvyo.>diaguyn 
KpaTouvT? > KpaTovvTos 
Tis (w erased) 
ddvgceEt 
KOLA > KOLas 
é&AnTHpLos > AALTNpLOS 
?>7omavipiay 
PeTACTHVat > peTavacThvar 
@) > Gv | 
Tpolas > Tpotav 


287] PLUTARCH’S AETIA GRAECA AND AETIA ROMANA 39 


H M+w 

13 xarecxebacev 3485 KaTecKevacey > KaTeokevacay 

14 rovréos érnpdcato F1; 349,15 Tour’ émnpacato>‘rovr’ érepa- 
TovrennpacatoW caro 

15 Avbover 350,11 Oiwor (w in rasura) 

16 dvaddpevos 352,6 dvaddouevos > avadovpevos 

17 — 352,15 kai (m2) 

18 wedorovnclwy 353,1 TeAOTOVHG wy > TENOTOVYNT WY 

19 dvewoarto 353,6 évewoavro (corrected?) 


Aetia Romana 


1 cepoviw 252,7 cEpoviw > cepovlw 

2 bcaTep 253413 bdcaTep >SacaTeEp 

3 goraey IAP go.Ttav > phir ay 

4 @bovres 253,24 Obovres > PbaovTes 

5 = gepovTos 254,18 yépov (three letters erased) 

6 fj 255,16 q>7 

7 amroxpiow 257,17 dméxpiow > amoxpuype 

8 dvwpe 258,3 by? > dveper 

9 ovyKexadvupevats 258,11 oOVYKEKANUpEVaLs > OVYKEKA- 

Auppevats 

10 rots 258,21 Tos >Tats 

11 daypodirny 262,18 dppoditny > aypodtrns 

12 of 264,4 oi >ob 

13 vdvvay 265,3 vovy? >vovvas 

14 ovv 267,2 ovv > obk 

15 6e 267,13 (5¢ erased) 

16 Kexparnrat 267,26 Kexparat (rn erased) 

17 dyulavroyr 267,27 dplavrov >evuiavrov? 

18 dpKov 269,3 épKov > SpKov 

19 dAvoddverav 21253 Avobaveray > AvotTaverav 

20 KoXaxedoat 273,16 Ko\akedoar>xkedevoat 

21 dxpaias 275,1 dkpatas > axualous 

22 redeias 27534 Tedelas > TEdEloLS 

23 7d 276,4 TO >TO 

24 mhdov 276,22 Tov > wtAov 

25 ebdopiay 277,20 evvoulav > evxoopulav 

26 xalpwy 284,7 2 >yepwv 

27 karapatropevos 285,22 (two letters erased) tapar- 
TOMEVOS 

28 borepnuerny'od 286,20 borepnuévnv' ol >eorepnuevn, vou 

29 podua 286,26  podpa>podyar 


30 abrav 287,9 abr&v > abrayv 


PLUTARCH’S AETIA GRAECA AND AETIA ROMANA [288 


M+w 
Body > Bayar 
avTous > abrovs 
PrXarro>BrAaTTH 
(rq erased) 
Opeivaxa > Opivaxa 
alrav > atrav 


40 
H 

31 Body 287,19 
32 avrods 292,17 
33 Brarro (F1 omits) 295,23 
34 rip 297,7 
35 Opetvaxa 302,14 
36 ab’rav 305,7 
37 Bovdas 311,9 
38 rovodet 313,27 
39 édevepelas 314,3 
40 breprépas 318,20 


BovXas > BobdXas 


nw wn 
TOLOVOL > TLOVGL 


éhevbép—as (two letters erased) 


€ t & UU 
UTTEPTEPAS > UITEPTEPOUS 


Another approach to a comparison of H and M is through the inter- 
linear additions to M. My photographs of M are a good deal smaller than 
M itself, and none too legible, so that it is with some hesitancy that I say 


that I believe they are by a second hand. 


H 

1 éy payn 251,19 
2 aire 2522 

3 — 260,25 
4 — 263,2 

5 xal 266,2 

6 rdaXavror 270,13 
7 rovabrny Zi2i20 
8 édevOépwy 279,11 
9 Bvtdvrios 279,25 
10 4 292,22 
11 — 297,18 
12 yer 301,12 
13 ravrwv 305,18 
14 aivyoupa : 310,17 
15 epi 314,3 

16 dp 314,13 


M 
hag payn? 
aura 


exrov (the second) 


4 
Kal 
A 
Kal 
TaANacov 
, 
TOANaVTOV 


7 OL 
T/ avTnv 


éNevOEpwv 


un € 
But ayruos 


ev 
TAVTOY 
atyoupa 


epi (ap’ Bern.) 


” 
Qv 


* 
# (2) dudd\exros (in margin) 


Finally, there are a few other variations between H and M in the Aetza 
Graeca which are not peculiar to H; similar readings in the Aetia Romana 
were included in the list of peculiar readings of H with the necessary 


comment. 


* This is the usual form of the additions; one or two are over an inverted v. 


289] PLUTARCH’S AETIA GRAECA AND AETIA ROMANA 41 


H M 

1 rHv+w 322,4 TOV 

TeTeNeuTnKOTWY+R3, F3,E,L 332,24 TeNeuTnKoTUv+A, R2, F2, V, 

Po 
3 dpreyxadetv-+w 338,5 avrexadetv+R1 (A and L are 
corrected) 

4 fepets W, R1 tepots F1 340,14 iepets >tepots M, iepots w 
5 éérd\evoev+w 350,3 ekexnevev M, étexduvcey R1 (A 


is corrected) 


This is the sum of the evidence, unwieldy enough in mass, without the 
addition of the peculiar errors of F1 and W, which I believe are almost 
valueless, because it is possible to deal with H. However, I have had little 
success in attempting to deduce the form of H from F1 and W within the 
limits of the Aetia Graeca and Romana, so I shall give the longer*® lacunae 
of the two codices with the hope that they may be found useful in the future. 


W 308,13 (rods droPavévras) Oarrev — 17 &vdurtov. One and a half lines 
are left blank. 
Fi 266,15 (ray éopriv) éxetvns — 18 rhv éopriy (du.) 
298,27 (Setrvov) 7 Kal — 299,2 detarvov (dp.) 
303,4, a dittography, (#Alov) xaraNaurovros — 6 AXiov (6u.) 


To these may be added an omission in M which was noticed and 
corrected in the margin by the first hand, 315, 19 (BovAdueror) ras—22 
goBotvmevor Tas (du). 

So far, then, it is clear that F1 and W are derived from H, and that H 
and M are closely related, but before attempting to draw more definite 
conclusions, I believe it will be well to review what is known about M and 
to restate the present problém. Wegehaupt alone recognised the important 
place of M in the Corpus and in 1909 he compared it with W in essays 20, 
Group A, and 28, Group B, with this result*:—W in 20 is derived from a 
Pre-Planudean manuscript, but has been contaminated by a manuscript of 
the Corpus; in 28 W and M have a common archetype. This means, of 
course, two sources for W within the first fifteen essays and is reasonable 
enough in connection with Wegehaupt’s discovery that M in essays 1—21, 
Group A, is derived from Mosc. 352, which contains only essays 1—21, 55, 
and, therefore, from at least a second source for the other essays. Now 
the problem in this study becomes this, whether H was derived from M 
or whether, as W in 28, H and M have a common archetype. 

On the hypothesis that H is derived from M, the peculiar readings of H 
must be errors made in copying, unless number 12 of the Aeiza Graeca, 


?'W has one and two word omissions on every page, but these reveal nothing of H when 
F1 does not also omit. | 
41909: 1039-1040. 


42 PLUTARCH’S AETIA GRAECA AND AETIA ROMANA [290° 


and numbers 5,9, 7, 16, and 34 of the Aetia Romana are emendations. Most 
of what I have called additions to M must have been made before H was 
copied; numbers 3, 4,and 11 may have been added later or overlooked. In 
the last short list from the Aetia Graeca, 1, 2, and 3 must also be corrections. 
Spasmodic correction of this sort is entirely possible, but one would have 
expected either more or less in so fertile a field. 

On the other hand, if H and M have a common archetype, the explana- 
tion becomes much simpler. Every one of the differences between H and 
M, neither of which can have been edited, so to speak, by the first hand, if 
one may judge from their numerous errors, can be attributed to miscopying 
of H or M. This, I believe, partly from the evidence I have given and 
partly from Wegehaupt’s conclusions, is the true relationship. Direct 
descent of fifteenth-century manuscripts through several intermediaries 
from a thirteenth-century manuscript requires a good deal of proof and 
I cannot find it in Fl and W. 


VII. R3 AND F3 


Paton in his study of the Pythian dialogues dismissed R3 as an unim- 
portant member of the Planudean Corpus with these words!:—Nonnthil 
pretit habere videtur vat. 1013 propter bonam eius scripturam gavraciacriKy 
(p. 125, 1.22). Cum A, R1 contra E, R2 facere solet. With this Wegehaupt 
in his earlier work could not agree because of the order of contents of R3 and 
its similarity with the Groups found in the Pre-Planudean manuscripts. In 
1906 he said’: ‘‘Dass die Gruppe (E) nicht im Planudeum vorkommt, 
dient uns zur Bestatigung dafiir, dass eine Abhangigkeit des Vat. 1013: 
vom Planudeum héchstens in den letzten Parteien anzunehmen ist.” A 
comparison of the Groups with the order of R3 will illustrate his reasons. 
for thinking that R3 preserved the Pre-Planudean Groups, particularly E,, 
which, if true, would automatically remove it from the Corpus: 


Groups: A, 1—21; B, 22—42; C, 28, 35, 30, and 29, 34, 58, often with 
36, 52, 31, 65; D, 43—50, often with 41, 42, 51, 54, 55; E, 56, 57, 65, 64, 67, 
31; F 56—69 (including two groups, 58—61, and 68, 69, 66.) 

R3, 1—21, 29, 58, 52, 56, 57, 64, 67, 68, 69, 66, 43—48, 53, 54, 53, 
22, 24-28, 30-—36;39-~-42),49-+451, 59°64: 68, (23.3%): 38. 


Since, however, the real criterion is the text itself, Wegehaupt in 1909 
collated R3 with all the other manuscripts he could obtain, through essays 
20 and 28. He found, as Paton had found, that the text was the Planudean, 
so he recasts his estimate in this way’: ‘‘Zu diesen Handschriften (A, E, 


11893: xxi, note 2. 
21906: 52. 

* Mewaldt, p. 830. 
41909: 1044. 


291) PLUTARCH’S AETIA GRAECA AND AETIA ROMANA 43 


R2) gehért aber auch 'der Uberlieferung nach der Vat. 1013 (oder seine 
Vorlage. . . ). Wohl aber lassen sich, wie ich friiher gezeigt habe, die . 
einzelnen Gruppen, aus denen die Sammlung des Planudes entstanden ist, 
mehrfach deutlich in ihm wiedersehen. Also auch der Schreiber dieser 
Handschrift hat noch die getrennten Vorlagen, kein fertiges Normal- 
exemplar vor sich gehabt.”’ 

Unfortunately, these ‘“‘getrennten Vorlagen” are only partially known; 
Wegehaupt discovered that Mosc. 352 was the prototype of essays 1—21, 
and Urb. 97 of 44—50, a very useful discovery for these essays, but of no 
help for the critical points in this problem.* These are, of course, 29, 58, 52; 
56, 57, 64, 67; 68, 69, 66 in R3 compared with Groups C, E, and F respec- 
tively. Now, immediately with Wegehaupt’s proof arises the primary 
objection to his view; if R3 represents the old order, for what reason did 
the archetype of the Planudean Corpus change 58, 52, 55, 56, 57, 64, 67, 68, 
69, 66 to 52—69? This question, or the reverse, must be answered in any 
satisfactory explanation of the origin of R3, but Wegehaupt leaves it un- 
answered. 

The order of the Planudean Corpus shows that essay was added to essay 
with no idea of coherence or classification, but merely with that of complete- 
ness. With this order compare that of R3 in the first thirty essays; 1—21, 
the Ethica, are identical in each, and within the next twelve occurs all of 
Wegehaupt’s proof. 


29 de sanitate praecepta 

58 praecepta gerendae reipublicae 

52 de virtute morali 

55 virtutem doceri posse 

56 de fortuna Romanorum 

57 de Alexandri seu virtute seu fortitudine 
64 bruta ratione uti ; 

67 de sollertia animalium 

68 de E Delphico 

69 de defectu oraculorum 

66 de Stoicorum repugnantiis 

43 non posse suaviter vivi secundum Epicurum 


To anyone who has not already in mind a fixed idea as to the cause of 
this order, it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that there is here an 
intended pairing of essays. It is true that four of these pairs occur in the 
old order, which in itself is natural enough, but two of them, 52, 55 and 66, 
43 do not, and they cannot be explained by Wegehaupt’s Group-theory. 
I believe, then, that the author of R3 or its prototype attempted a reclassi- 


51905: 397 and 403. 


44 PLUTARCH’S AETIA GRAECA AND AETIA ROMANA [292 


fication of the essays by similar pairs; that he stopped after the six quoted 
above is no objection, for his task was not easy. Modern complete editions 
have remained singularly content with the attempted reform of the 
edition® of Stephanus which Wyttenbach’ so far misunderstood as to term 
it e tempore natus. 

If it be granted, then, that R3 revised the order of its source or sources, 
the question still remains whether R3 is derived from the “‘getrennten Vor- 
lagen” or some ‘‘Normalexemplar.’’ In the former case in the Aetia 
Graeca and Romana R3 should agree most nearly with M, F1, and W, 
provided that my assumed manuscript-relationships are correct. The fact 
is that it does not. The readings of F1, M, and W which I have given in 
the preceding chapters indicate this in part and the readings of R3 itself 
follow in witness of my assertion. 

One or two other matters should be mentioned. 64 is copied twice, 
once in the paired, or, as Wegehaupt believed, Group E, position, and a 
second time following 63 in the Planudean order. The index in R3 does 
not contain the titles of the last six essays, so that Wegehaupt was certain 
of a second source here, whatever might be proved in respect to the rest 
of the manuscript.’ 53 is repeated for unknown reasons. Finally, the 
famous marginal note in 22, otrws oloua detv ypayeoOar, which, very 
probably, Maximus Planudes wrote in the archetype of the Planudean 
Corpus, if M is this archetype, appears in R3 in the first person as it does 
in A and M. 

F3, the younger manuscript, has the order of R3 from 43 to 63, omitting 
25, 26, 34, 59, 60; then come 68, 55, 66, followed by 53 and 54 (not as in 
R3 between 48 and 22), and, again with R3, 65, 23, 37. All editors who 
have used F3 have agreed that it is a copy of R3, and their agreement is 
confirmed in 62. i 

R3 has but one peculiar reading in the Aetia Graeca, Oavyatovtes (sic), 
a fact which is significant. F3 has thirty-nine, all errors, of which the 
following are typical: 


F 3 ) 
Lee 322,26 éml TOV 
2 dorpod 320,95 ALwov 
3 peradiddor 327,2 meTad@at 
4 évédaBe 327,8 éveBane 
5 Tpayeras 329,5 Tpayeas 


6 Treu; 1877: xviii. 
NOLL, pe cviil) 
§ 19052):392. 


293] PLUTARCH’S AETIA GRAECA AND AETIA ROMANA 


45 


Differences between R3 and F3, other than the peculiar readings of 


either, are these: 


R3 


1 rediov-+w 


2 tupiav+M, F1, W, A, R1, L 


3 ot Kkaveuvnoe+W 


4 peravactqvat+M (corr.), w 
5 pera Tav’rat+w 


6 mrédastw 


In addition, F3 has a habit of adding nu-movable wherever possible. 


326,21 
331,10 
336,11 
340,17 
350,14 
352,2 


F3 
mavotov + M 


rpvylav-+V, R2, F2,E,P, T 


ovK aveurnoet+w 


meraoTnvact+F1, W 
meratatra+R2, E 


matdas+W, R1 


The second of the above list I have commented upon in the chapter on 
R2, F2, V, P, T; the rest are coincidental agreements with other manu- 
scripts and of little weight, which is also true of the differences between R3 
_ and F3 in the first twenty chapters of the Aetia Romana. A dittography 
of F3, mdelovas, 251, 1—re, 3, not due to 6u., which equals one line of R3, 
easily offsets fifteen omissions and misspellings. 


Peculiar common readings and significant readings of R3 and F3 from 


the Aetia Graeca are these: 


F3, R3 


“oNootias-+ W 
d&povav 
TOTANQLOV 
birépns +E 
TOV 


CONNOR WS NS 


dtagopay Twa+L 


TrAavapevov +F1, W 


9 rornpwv+E, L (corr.) 


10 rereXeuTnxéTwv+F 1, W, E 


11 AdBy 
12 otrw+E 


13 AapuBavover yap 


14 dAabn 


a 
15 dpaivov R3; épatvov.F3, 


16 dpaivov 
17 éraipetart+E 
18 wirras+R1 
19 xdppats 
20 raév+E 


AFLAR1 


321,2 
323,8 

326,22 
326,23 
331,4 

Ratt 
331,14 
331,14 
331,18 
332,24 
333,17 
334,10 
334, 11 
336,6 


336,22 
337,13 
337,22 
338,13 
338,26 
338,26 


ot 

dtagopayv Tia 
poNocotas 
apaovav 

TO TWadatov 
Ureépnros 

THY 
TAQVWMEVNV 
TOTEPOV 
TENEUTNKOTWV 
AaBor 

oUTWS 
AapBavover — 


AdBor 


dpavouv OF apaov 
a&pavou 

ETEPELAL 

witTav 

KOpats 


46 PLUTARCH’S AETIA GRAECA AND AETIA ROMANA [294 


F3, R2 a 
21 unéeuiav 339,2 ovdeulav 
22 peep R3; égéoriov F3 340,18 Epeo Lov 
23 immadkpov Kai 340,22 imm&Nkyou — 
24 rod 340,26 TO 
25 vouos 342,18 voOuos 
26 xo\avod+L 343,6 KoAwVvOD 
27 — 345,6 TOY 
28 ddXAadxkopevai 345,8 d&dNaAKoyeval 
29 apoonxev+W, F1,M,E (corr.) 348,6 I pOonKeL 


30 yaar ee sic; (both m1) 349,15 érelpagaTo 


The position of R3 with regard to the other manuscripts is defined first 
of all by the fact that it does not have the peculiar omissions and readings 
of W, F1, M, nor of R2, nor of E. The latter two may be rejected from 
consideration as possible archetypes at once, but since several of the 
peculiar readings of W, F1 and M, are undoubtedly correct—see 4, 13, 15, 
16, 19, of the Aetia Graeca—R3 must be derived from A or else have made 
identical errors. 

If, therefore, R3 is derived from A, each of the readings in the list above 
must be explained. Several, such as 1, 19, 25, at first sight confess them- 
selves errors, but numbers 22 and 30 betray as clearly the hand of the 
corrector. 6, 7 and 8 together form another example; in 331, 17 where 
Bernardakis writes 77 d6eX¢79 with E, all other manuscripts have 76 d6eheo; 
in 331,14 Fl and W with R3 and F3 have the correct masculine tA avapevov 
but R3 and F3 alone have consistently 7éy in the same line. Dindorf, 
correcting ‘Tzépns, line 13, to ‘Yrépov has shown that the masculine should 
be used, were the context itself not enough.® 

9, 10, 12 and 14 are corrections that agree with present-day texts; 
11 was not so successful. 13 is an error from the preceding vopifovot yap, 
line 8—9. 15 agrees with A, but since A wrote dpavovu in 16, the consistent 
copyist kept to the former method of spelling, adding the variant over 15. 
mitras, 18,in A is the last word of the first of two lines added in the margin; 
I believe a nu is written but a sigma could easily be read. 20 and 22 are 
good corrections; 21 and 23 (if this was intended as a correction) are not. 
26 was caused by the shape of the omega in A which was made in this 
way: starting at the top center of the intended letter a circle was drawn; 
the line was then continued down through the circle bending toward the 
right until it was to the right of and below the circle where it looped back 
to the left upon itself below the circle and continued up to begin the nu. 
If the stroke dividing the circle is well to the right, as it is here, an alpha 


* Stephanus Thesaurus under ‘Yrépeta. 


295] PLUTARCH’S AETIA GRAECA AND AETIA ROMANA 47 


results. 29 and 30 have the sanction of all editors. One feels a certain 
respect for the author of R3 because of his sound if not brilliant scholarship 
and determined accuracy. 

Variants of R3 and F3 in the Aetia Romana (first twenty chapters) 
fall naturally into one of these two classes, minor errors or corrections. 
The readings in which R3 agrees with the text of Bernardakis against A, 
I have marked with a C. 


R3 A 
1 otk eypavev 252515 ob yeypavev 
2 —to—(du.) 253,19—20 éor—tborepordrpous 
3 dbaovtes > OvoarrTes 253,24 ObcovTes 
4 Obaovtes 253,24 bicavres 
5 pn 6 ado 255,16 pn dc’&dXo(e, m2) 
6 dvwpe 258,4 dvwpeu (4, m2; cf. R2) 
7 ovyKekadvuppevor C 258,11 OUYKEKAAUPLEV ALS 
8 rats C 258,21 Tots > Tats (?) 
9 — 259,10 ovx (m2) 
10 rov-+E © 265,20 TO 
11 évwarns 266,10 évarns 
12 bo dlav iss 267,27 etulavrov 
13 oupBadrdorTo 269,5 oupBaro.to 
14 ryv-+W 269,14 TOV 
15 rod€novs 274,13 To\eulous 
16 dovov (c erased) 276,3 Sovov 
17 giro0cdgor 283,6 yirdaogot 
ot t 
(cf. €tAvovia 283,20 éAlovia) 
18 én’ obser hp BCR trinse y Be 
19 xvicxecOar % 286,9 kulecOar 
20 wap’ dcor Di Oe 286,27 Tapdocov 
21 OAndtv 286,28 Onda 
22 wavres os 291,21 TAVTWS 
23 AtKawva 291,27. dxaca (v erased) 
24 éravoay 292,17 aveT AUTaY 
25 émi kdoTats ¢ 292,25 émukdoT ats 
26 abros 393,20 avTa@ 
27 dakvomévovor 294,15 dakvouevous 
28 peteuTéeuWarTo 300,25 peTrem en avrTo 
29 @ 302,26 6 
30 7dv (the second) 303,21 TO 
31 Oedy i 305,13 dea 


48 PLUTARCH’S AETIA GRAECA AND AETIA ROMANA [296 


R3 A 
32 tamoKxoovTioav 805,22 immoKowyTLO@v 
33 oby C 306,4 yovv 
34 coBnoes e 307,13 couBnoets 
35 Kparos >Kparous 309,12 KpaTos 
36 repdeppaiors J11,8 jeploepators 
ST ake 312,1 Botddns 
38 — 312,18 dé 
39 yxalpovor>xaipovoat C 314,8 —xalpovor 
40 mpocarodovcas 31323 mpocarodovoas (v) m2) 
41 dvaidny 317,9 avedny | 
42 ot 319,26 7 


Numbers 5, 9 and 40, may be due to an oversight, or to a mistaken 
interpretation, or correction after R3 was copied. 

In summary, therefore, I believe, R3 is a copy of A for these reasons: 
it is possible to account for the order of R3 by the author’s selection of 
paired essays as well as by Wegehaupt’s Groups; R3 does not have the text 
of manuscripts which best represent the text of the Planudean sources, M, 
Fi,and W; R3 agrees with A against these manuscripts; corrections exist 
in the text of R3, made by the first hand, which substantiate the explana- 
tion of other departures from the text of A, on the ground of correction; 
the remaining differences between R3 and A are obvious errors. 


VIII. LAND Ri 


L and R1, fifteenth century manuscripts of the Planudean Corpus, 
are of value only in their corrections. R1 has a certain historical interest, 
since readings from it were added to the Frankfurt Graeco-Latin edition, 
after which it was lost until Stevenson rediscovered it in the Vatican 
library. In L, a second hand has introduced a few good emendations 
which are found in no other manuscript. 


L w 

1 wodtgboov 324, 6 rordbybovor The reading of L is in every edition 

since that of Frankfort, 1599, which, 
, so far as is known, did not use L. 

2 kodrada@v 328, 15—16 xoXdGvy Xylander, Wyttenbach, Duebner and 
Bernardakis agree with L. 

3 dmayopetoa 336, 3 ayopedoat Xylander and _ Bernardakis agree 

with L. 


t Hahn, 1905: 15. 


297] PLUTARCH’S AETIA GRAECA AND AETIA ROMANA 49 


The date of these corrections is unknown, and in contrast the first hand 
of L in the Aetia Graeca has ninety peculiar readings of this sort: 


L Ww 
1 més Hs Kal ds 321.2 f® kal p 
2 €& 322,9 €ENKOVTA 
3 —to— 322,10 olov — mpoBobdots 
4 rodvraby 324,7 jwoNuTrevOH 
5 éOixas 520,22 alfixas 


Ri has one hundred and forty of which the majority are misspellings: 


R1 wy 
1 zo\\ds 322,24 Tanaas 
2 de 329,9 ap 
3 mpnbvns 5 cat I pinvyns 
4 — 333,3 giravOpwrwv 
5 67 346,13 QS TL 


Neither of these codices has the peculiar readings of F1, W, M, nor of 
R2, nor of R3. Again it is necessary to compare A. The singular order of 
L I makes no pretence of explaining, but R1 with 31—53, 55—69, is clearly 
related to the Planudean Corpus. 

Land R1 have one striking reading in common with A, ras weyapléas 
329,18, where all other manuscripts have 7a 607@ except E which leaves a 
blank equal to seven letters. The word in A is written im rasura. In two 
other cases the writing of A affords admirable opportunity for the variants 
in L and R1: oupraifwr, A, 333, 13, cvvraifwy, L and R1, and kippayr, A, 
326, 24, xippwv (kippnvy,Lm 2)Land R1. xippay occurs in one of the lacunae 
of A which are restored in the upper margin; the alpha is a true alpha, 
® (not an a-type, a), with its finishing left-to-right stroke carried up to 
continue the v-shaped nu. The result is by no means unlike an omega. 

Leaving for the moment the ultimate source of L and R1, I shall give 
the evidence for their derivation from a common prototype later than A. 
From the Aetia Graeca there is little to give: 


R1, L ana: 
1 even R1; evveas (c deleted L) 326,10 evvea 
2 &dov 333.5 £ovGou 
3 duocetpeias 342,9 duognutars 
4 Texotoa 344,16 TEKOVTAY 
5 de 345,11 6” 


6 mpoonoropnKey 345,12 TT pooLaoTOpnKev 


50 PLUTARCH’S AETIA GRAECA AND AETIA ROMANA [298 


The first twenty chapters of the Aetiza Romana are a little more con- 
clusive. I shall also give here readings that show relationship to A. 


Rio a) 
1 torepordtpous+ A(m2) 253/18 bpTEpoouous 
2 borepordruous-+ A(m2) 253)20 boreporopuous 
3 —to— 257,1—2 Oarepov—amoxadirrovrar (dy) 
4 guvotket 257,14 auvoxerov (A, ovvoxet™ for ovr- 
OLKELOY ) 
5 o&x+A (m2) 259,10 — 
6 dodd\os-+A (corr.) 260,1 doDdov 
7 Tapackevavwy 260,8 Tapackevafov 
8 evdexatov+F1, W 261,5 €vOEKATOV 


The common omission, number 3, in addition to the lesser similarities 
makes a common source for L and R1 probable, and again, in numbers 
1, 2, 5, and 6 occurs agreement with A. 

A, as I have already shown, has been corrected in a number of places; 
the method varies from rewriting im rasura, interlinear and marginal notes, 
to superimposing one syllable upon another without erasing the original 
reading. Two copies have been made of A, 7. e. R2 and R3, which do not 
have the reading rds peyapidas, 329, 18, and consequently the prototype of L 
and R1 must be later than R2 and R3 to allow time for the correction to 
be made in A. Acomparison of R2, R3, L, and R1 in the A etia Graeca where 
A shows signs of correction, with the exception of cases of complete agree- 
ment, follows. 


A 
1 cddrAwy> cddors 3225 godors R2, R3, L cddow R1 
2 Tpocnkwv > Tpocoixwy 3253 Tpocolkwy R2,R3,L rpoonkwrv R1 
3 xrigeyv (v,m2) 328,21 krife. R1, R2, R3 xrifew L 
4 ras weyapidas+ R1, L 329,18 Ta 6074 R2, R3 
5 ot (m2)+R2, R3, L 3:3553 Sar | 
cf. of (m2)+R1, R2,R3,L . 349,11 
6 éraipiar> €ératpeiar 337,22 ératpelar R1, érepetar R2, éra- 
petar R3, éraip-ai (sign of eras- 
ure) L 
7 avreyKanety (ry, m2) 3306,5 avrexadely R1; dvreyxarety R2, 
Ro0U 
8 THs>Tas 342,8 Tas R1, R2, R3 ras L 
9 TH>THY 348,6 ppp Iojoiel ™ R2, R3 
10 wod\er>7oAW 348,6 moder R2, R3 modu L, Ri 
11 é&ex\ePev> eEerdevoev 350,3 éLerdevoey R2, R3, L, e&exAvoev 


R1 


299] PLUTARCH’S AETIA GRAECA AND AETIA ROMANA 51 


A 
12 wédas (€ im rasura) 301,3 maidas R2,R3_ wédas L, R1 
12 Baie e 351,19 zaidor R2, R3, R1, wédwy L 


The texts of L and R1 are so full of errors that it is difficult to find 
absolute proof of their derivation, but on the strength of all the evidence 
quoted I believe it will be admitted that A is the archetype. From this 
last list it is clear that a part of their errors may be attributed to their 
common source Q, later than A, because Q must have given the two readings 
visible in A in numbers 1, 11, and 13; 2, 3, 5, 7, and 8 may be errors of 
L or R1. 4, 9, 10 and 1, 2, 5, 6 of the readings from the Aetza Romana 
appear to be corrections in A after R2 and R3 were copied, which makes 
Q, of course, later than R2 and R3. This explanation of the descent of L 
and R1 is none too satisfactory, but it is simpler than trying to derive L 
and R1 individually from A, and there is no evidence at all that they are 
derived from another source and contaminated. 


LX is 


In beginning a discussion of E, I wish to call attention again to the 
stemma of Paton! from essays 68 and 69 which by position in the Corpus 
are closer to 62 than any of the essays that have been studied individually, 
and in particular to the relationship of R2 and E and to the existence of 
6. The existence of this lost manuscript has been granted; but its signif- 
icance has been overshadowed by the unusually readable quality of the 
text of E, the curious omissions, and the question of sources. Behr,? for 
example, summarises recent opinion in saying that E represents a further 
step (beyond A) in the text-critical activity of Planudes. However, I 
believe a deduction may safely be made from the careless character of the 
copyist (or five copyists, Treu, 1877: 5) of E, which is attested in the 
Aetia Graeca by such readings as these: tyv, 322, 4; éowvov éowppdvncay 
for xpévov éowgpdvrcav, 330, 17; tepoovrnv, 341, 19; rovs, 341, 19; addars, 
342, 9, which is, that the copyist of E could not have made the corrections 
himself, but that they must have been made in a prototype e. In other 
studies a lost source has been tacitly assumed in the theory that A, E, and 
R2 are derived independently from the archetype of the Planudean 
Corpus, but no allowance has been made for the errors of E on these grounds 
except in minor and obvious instances such as those quoted above. Now, 
working from e, not E, in the Aetia Graeca, I was immediately faced with 
the problem of explaining the relationship of e to R2, because of the 
peculiar readings of E, R2, F2, V, P, T, which I shall repeat. 


+ Part J, p. 19. 
21911: 69. 


52 PLUTARCH’S AETIA GRAECA AND AETIA ROMANA [300 
E and R2 @) 
be 322;5 n 
2 of (lepers) a2) t — 
3 évveatnploas 32030 évvaernploas 
4 rH 320,020 TOV 
Mn Seok Kal 
6 KkayuBvns 328, 19 KkaBins 
7 6yxnpov 329, 13 oyxXneTOU 
8 TpiTod.oKovvot 330, 1 TpiTodioKor OF TpLTOdLoKatoL 
9 pvnuovevadyueva 334, 19 pynuovevOnaduera 
10 eis 334, 26 és 
11 gidcactors 342, 6 pAtactous 
12 pvyorvrwr 342, 23 puyovTa 
tS ost 344, 10 mev 
14 —to— 345, 1—2 ws — &de (One line of A;notéu.) 


Mewaldt® mentions in a footnote that the correction in the twenty- 
second essay is in the third person in R2 as it is in E. 

Nine peculiar readings of E and R2 from the first twenty chapters 
of the Aetia Romana are given in the chapter on R2, F2, V, P, T; those 
from the remainder of the Aetia Romana are numbers 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 
25, 28, 32, 36, 39, 41, 43, 47, 48 in the list of differences between A and R2. 

E, therefore, from these peculiar readings and from a lack of peculiar 
readings with M, F1 or W, is closer to R2 than to any other manuscript. 
There are three possible relationships, of which one, that R2 is derived 
from E, is impossible because of the many peculiar readings of E. Bern- 
ardakis, for example, has twenty-four of these in his text of the Aetia 
Graeca. 


$1906: 830. 


E 3) 
1) rus S21 516 Tls 
2 émiweyowevwy 324, 16 ETLYEVOMEVWY 
3 Kal 325,45 ata 
4 abrov 327, 20 — 
5 dopikevos 329, 24 dopvéevos 
6 dopradwrouv SoUy 12 dopvadwrou 
7 dopiéevos 330, 12 dopvéevos 
8 7H adedon B3i17 TH BENG 
9 abrHy 331,,18 avr ov 
10 édacious 334, 2 éXactas 
11 oivdxdov 335, 4 ovoKou 
12 otvoxdov 335, 6 dvok\ov 
13 rovTw 338, 13 TAUTN 
14 karouxjoa 339, 4 KQTOLKELD 


301] PLUTARCH’S AETIA GRAECA AND AETIA ROMANA 53 


E w 
15 ravaypikhy 340, 19 TAVAY PALKnv 
16 at 341, 1 er 
17 dvoemarodyras 341, 6 dvcemaTravras 
18 édxevdiov 341, 14 éAxvdlou 
19 ognoiv 342, 5 — 
20 éxwvouacbnoay 349, 11 eTwvou.acOna av 
21 4 349, 12 — 
22 dv 349, 14 a. 
23 dvérdevo ar 350, 18 dvéregov 
24 atta San, 40 avTov 
(cf. unbevds 338, 15 unbev (undevos, Bern.) 


The second and generally accepted relationship is that E and R2 
are derived from a common source, which is also the source of A. From the 
readings quoted above, this can be stated more accurately as follows: E is 
from e; e and R2 are from a lost manuscript X; X and A have a common 
archetype. 

The third possible relationship, which I am going to discuss at some 
length, is that E, the younger manuscript, is derived from R2, for this 
is by no means an absurdity if I am correct in deriving R2 from A. The 
two facts must be harmonised, the relationship of R2 to A, which is 
emphasized by the omission in R2 of one line of A without the excuse of 
ou., and the relationship of E and R2 which is proved by their common 
readings. 

R2 and E have these differences, other than peculiar readings of either, 
in the Aetia Graeca: 


E R2 
1 rov-+M, F1, W 323, 24 —+w 
2 émvecks+w 324, 1 émexs-+ V 
3 rav+M, F1, W 5 V4 | —-+-w 
4 tvrépyst+ R3, F3 S31. 13 brépntos+w 
5 roTnpiwv+R3, F3 Dal uis mote pov + w 
6 reredXevTnKdTwv + R3, F3, 332, 24 TeveuTnkoTwy+ M, A, P, V, 
F1, W, L Pace bole t 
7 kacovwratav+R3, F3 334, 24 Kacowmalay-+w 
8 aknoavt+F1, W oo, & &kicay-+w 
9 nv os +F1 0) LO éOos ny-tw 
10 dvauipynoxn+M, F1, W 336, 5 avaplvnoKke +a 
11 rév+R3, F3 338, 26 Tats +w 
12 roivavipos+F1, W 340, 5 Tolwavd pov + w 
13 aiodetar+F1, W 341, 1 aioNlar+-w 


14 6+M, F1, W 344, 18 as 


54 PLUTARCH’S AETIA GRAECA AND AETIA ROMANA [302 


E R2 
15 AaBpadéat+ M, F1, W 346, 21 AaBpadéws+w 
16 mrpoojxev+R3, F3, M, 348, 6 T poanker-+ a 
F1, W (E is corrected) 
17 érnpacato+M, F1, W, 349,15 émretpaaato-+w 
R3, F3 (corrected) 
18 dpytpiv+ F1, L 349, 19 a&pyupov-+w 


All of these readings of E, except 9, 13, and 15 stand in Bernardakis’ 
text. | 

What was the source of these readings and the twenty-four in the 
previous list? By any theory of the origin of E that has been advanced 
they must be corrections from a second source or emendations, “‘a further 
step in the text-critical activity of Planudes’” as Behr said, and in the 
present study it makes little difference which. The purpose of the correc- 
tions is first, of course, to restore proper forms and cases, and secondly to 
simplify the text and make it more readable, which is shown by the first list; 
and I do not believe it is necessary to assume a second source or sources, 
since the same purpose is evident in the second list with the possible 
exception of 9. This is an inversion of order in F1 which is not in W; 
therefore, H, the archetype of F1 and W, did not have it. However, there 
has been at least one manuscript between F1 and H, judging from the 
texts of F1 and W, which may have had the error and may have been old 
enough to be the source of a correction in E. On the other hand, E has 
eight inversions of order in the Aetiza Romana, two of which are corrected, 
and two more which I believe were intentional, so that the similarity 
may be a coincidence. Again, there is a question why E should wish 
to change the order here, and the fact that if the order jv os did seem 
preferable, the author of E, or rather of e, would not have hesitated to 
make the change. But for the problem of the relationships of the manu- 
scripts the important fact is that one may safely assume that they are all 
corrections in e which were copied in E. ; 

Wyttenbach believed that E was a copy of A, and he has been supported 
by Weil and Reinach and from the evidence in the second essay by Behr, 
who nevertheless allowed himself to be overruled by Mewaldt and Wege- 
haupt. The reason for the opposition is the presence in E of lacunae where 
the text of A is sound; if E were a direct copy of A, emendations could be 
explained but not omissions, because of the care shown in making the 
emendations. And when Mewaldt discovered poor readings of A in the 
Vitae from Laur. C. S. 206 which are not in E, a common origin seemed 
to be the ciosest possible relationship. Now, since I am discussing the 
possibility of deriving E from R2, itself derived from A, there is a signifi- 
cance in the fact that R2 does not contain the Vitae, which may account 


303] PLUTARCH’S AETIA GRAECA AND AETIA ROMANA 55 


for Mewaldt’s argument but does not explain the lacunae in E. In the 
Aetia Graeca the lacunae are as follows: 


Omissions of E 


1 76 mXeLoTov ExovTas 2a, 12 Three-quarters of a _ line 
are left blank. 

2 vO—(sic) ebors w 324, 6 Space is left for five letters. 

3 dnud 21, 24 Space is left for five letters. 

4 ras doras (Bern.) rad07Taw 329,18 Space isleft forsevenletters. 


5 Aedgov (Bern.) ddedgdr w 332, 15 and 26 Space is left for nine letters 
in each case. 

6 Kal TovTov eloayet 340, 21 One and one-third lines 
are left blank. 

7 —rodews (sic) untporodews Bern.; wecordod\ews w 345,15 Space is left 
for four letters. 


8 Kxal kparjoavTes 347, 1—2 No space is left in the text. 
9 dxevdvTwy 349, 16 No space is left in the text. 
10 vncw SU tih) iN No space is left in the text. 
11 g—(sic) pavTwv w 350, 22 Space is left for six letters. 


I shall attempt to account for these omissions by the two factors in 
the history of E which I have already mentioned; 1, the existence of a 
rough copy e, probably not written very accurately nor with particular 
emphasis on legibility, which was full of every sort of correction, with 
word-additions, word-transpositions, and indications of faults in the 
text that required further correction; 2, the mechanical and often inaccur- 
ate copying on the part of the author of E, who was employed for the 
beauty of his handwriting and not for his knowledge of Greek. The 
second factor explains satisfactorily 8, 9, and 10, espeeially in view of the 
passages in which 8 and 9 are found. In numbers 1, 2,4, 5, 7, and 11 
the text that is found in all other manuscripts is either unquestionably 
wrong or else highly suspicious, and since the space left blank in E in 
2, 4,5, 7, and 11 so nearly approximates that taken up by the readings in 
the other manuscripts, I believe that in these cases the corrector of e in- 
dicated the error of the common reading in e without emendation, which 
E translated by a corresponding blank in his text. 3, I confess, can only 
be explained by a guess; djuos and d6nués can hardly have been confused, 
so I shall merely suggest that the text of e may have been difficult to 
read and that the author of E was not the man to make an emendation. 
In 6 as in 1 the space left in E is much greater than the omission requires; 
this is natural in 1 where some words seem to have dropped out, and may 
have been so marked in e as to cause the omission of what remained. 
However, it is doubtful whether this can be the explanation of 6, since the 
text in which 6 occurs is straightforward enough in the light of the whole 


56 PLUTARCH’S AETIA GRAECA AND AETIA ROMANA [304 


chapter, but there may easily have been something else, such as an illegible 
gloss, which led the author of E, conscious of his own limitations, to 
leave the blank and let some subsequent scholar emend. 

This is all the evidence from the Aetia Graeca except for a number of 
obvious errors which I have not thought worth quoting,and a fewinstances 
in which Bernardakis has not followed the solitary example of E in adding 
the article. From my own evidence that R2 is a copy of A and that E and 
R2 are closely related, I have come to the conclusion that E is a copy of 
é which is in turn a highly edited copy of R2. It isa matter of probabilities, 
for the proof cannot be exact; 6 and 3 of the above list may overthrow my 
argument; but if in a debated relationship, such as this, every variation 
should be found to have a simple and obvious cause, I should feel it neces- 
sary to begin at once a recollation. 

Readings from the Aetia Romana are these: 


Additions 
1 (yap) dre Rep aae e. 
2 (elety) kal 201, 23 
3 (67Tos) Kal 273,'0 
4 (rorapod) 76 Zi v2e 
5 (éoropnke) éx 280, 11 
6 (éarn) otTw 283, 18 
7 (yevéeoOar) &d\AG KUvOy 283,20 
8 (untpdéroXs) ai 284, 15 
9 (cuvébevro) obv 286, 9 
10 (undrov) 4 290, 16 
11 (otrws) 6 290, 19 
£3) Geat) yes 291, 17 
13 (waxaipa) pr) 293, 26 
14 (riv) rijs 295, 4 
15 (rvpavviéc) 60’ 306, 1 
16 (Baordelas) kal 319, 19 
17 (éxdvrwv) r&v 5’ apxdvTwy 319, 21 tev 6 Snuoctwy M, m2, and 


A, m2, in margin. 
This list, I believe, was added to e by a Byzantine revisor to simplify 
the text; it suggests personal emendation rather than correction from a 
second manuscript. 


Corrections 
E ! w 
1 xpwpérwv-+L, m2 YA ya X po Eevov 
2 mapacxety Pe 8 émLoxelv 
3 Tots 255,/ 22 TOTE 
4 mpoomhéxecbar 254, 13 mepiTexeaOar 
5 Tov ovrrov 254, 15 TO Novmov 


305] PLUTARCH’S AETIA GRAECA AND AETIA ROMANA 


E 
6 érevonbnoay 
7 Ott 
8 yu (the first) 
9 eldovs 
10 drodiddévres 
11 de 
12 rovt+R3 
13 «idol 
14 7 
15 vopltovor 
16 yawos 
17 G&d\d\ws 
18 pirreyv 
19 rov 
20 tov 
21 radda 
22 Tots 
23 évrixrovoas 
24 amddtpos 
25 trav émapxav 
26 a&pnv+Fi1 
27 apeos+F1 
28 érepov 
29 rpaorires 
30 4 
31 epidépacov 
32 ey’ 
33 riBodpr 
34 xappevTn 


35 éxovras+F1, W, M(?) 


36 ravres+R3 
37 tiv mwodw 

38 7 

39 pertxlas 

40 ctuBordov 

41 fa 

42 rns oednvns 
43 gwrewiy 

44 émi 

45 dvappwrvbover 
46 an’+F1, W 
47 yu) 


255, 12 
256, 19 
260, 1 

264, 8 

264, 23 
265, 18 
265, 20 
266, 10 
266, 13 
268, 24 
269, 26 
270, 2 

271, 10 
273, 9 

273, 10 
274, 18 
276, 18 
276, 28 
yw Gey 
278, 25 
281, 5 

281, 6 

282, 20 
282, 26 
283, 15 
284, 8 


and 28 


285, 23. 


285, 24 
286, 21 
288, 17 
291, 21 
292, 13 
293, 10 
295, 7 

295, 22 
295, 24 
296, 8 

297, 11 
297, 12 
298, 10 
298, 19 
298, 27 


w 
direvonOnaay 
Kal 
pnde 
eldovs 
érb doves 
TE 
TO 
eldot 


- 


U 
voulfovres 
yas 
&dAots 
purrety 

THY 

THY 

Tanda 

TL 
évyTexovoas 
mT AGLLOS 
Tovs émrapxous 
apn 

pews 
érarpov 
mpavoTirns 


A 


7 
TEpLoOeppatov 
ér’ 

TiBovpt 
KapmeEvn 
EXOVTES 
TAVTWS 

TH WONEL 


" 


7 

perALas 
oupBorarov 
wou 

Tats ceAnvats 
paeny 

éy 
é&vapwvvvovct 
érr’ 


pnde 


57 


58 


PLUTARCH’S AETIA GRAECA AND AETIA ROMANA 


E 


48 eyou 
49 
50 


2 
ss 
o 


1 
2 
3 


54 


5 


author, and the condition of e at the time when E was copied. 


of the more important only: 


as 


9 


mem OOo WA MH S&S W LD Pe 


TOA ON PW DH 


KabatpecOar 
TAVTENDS 
a&mréoXovTO 


ovoudtrev-+F1, W 


Tapa 
EcOn 

Us 
TLECOVT AL 


306, 22 
311.2 
$11; 29 
Bile 
313,23 


314.3 


317, 19 
318, 20 


3) 
Neyer 
Kabalpev 
iaxupas 
QTELXOVTO 
dvonatovas 
wept 

gbain 
TLECOUVT AL 


[306 


The title ‘“‘Corrections” does not mean alteration in the text of E by a 
first or second hand, but that these readings are necessarily corrections if 
E, on the strength of the common archetype, is derived from the same 
sources as the other manuscripts. _ I] have quoted minor corrections, 
such as those in accent, to illustrate the close attention to detail of the 


Small errors are frequent as in the Aetia Graeca and I shall cite some 


Errors 
E 


TApEXE TOL 
yuTolous 
&XPNOTOUS 

THY 

dexapxtas + W 


v 
mopevecBat 


265, 17 
266, 16 
O71, 19 
274, 23 
284, 11 
285, 12 
318, 17 


® 
@ 


TApeXxovT Aa 
g.ouTlots 

aX pnUaTlLaTous 
TavTnv 
dexadapxtas 
broropevecO ar 


The dividing line between correction and error in this and the preceding 
list is not always clear; another example is 291, 26, dndobyres, E, kadovves, w. 
There remain the omissions of E; when a space has been left in the 
text I have indicated in parentheses the equivalent in letters: 


Omissions 
a \elovas 
T@ 
xadhav (6) 
e€ apxis 
, e 
ETLELKOS 
ToMA— (Sic) 
GS EOLKED 
6é 
(6) after mparnv 
Kal 
ECOPTHS 


251, 1 
252, 9 
252, 27 
253, 16 
253, 27 
254, 7 
254, 8 
255, 6 
264, 18 
265, 11 
272; 15 


jToAAov 3 to\Naxov Bern. 


No known word is omitted. 


307] PLUTARCH’S AETIA GRAECA AND AETIA ROMANA 39 


12 rév e276, 7 
13 (ofvov) apvyocayévov— ~ 279, 27—280, 2 
olvov (du.) 


14 rovs 286, 23 

15 éeé 294, 13 

16 (20) after é\Awp 300, 3 No known word is omitted. 
17 kal SO cer b. 

18 per Jeo 

19 ob 318, 18 


The proportion of careless to intended omission in the Aetza Romana 
compared with the Aetia Graeca is reversed. All except numbers 3, 9, 
and 16 may be the fault of the copyist of E, unless the corrector of e had 
some stylistic preference in the use of xai and the article. In 16 the 
lacuna which E indicates, followed by Bernardakis, is very possible; in 
9 I suspect a noun in e which E could not decipher. 3 is similar to 3 
and 6 in the Aetia Graeca; again, at a guess, the reading in e was not 
legible and the copyist of E preferred to leave room for a scholar to supply 
the missing word. If the existence of the thoroughly edited e is granted, 
the mechanical, calligraphic character of E supports this view. 

In a word, I believe that the evidence from the Aetia Romana bears 
out that from the Aetia Graeca, and that E is derived fromA in the Moralia 
through R2 and e. 


xX. THE ALDINE EDITION 


The text of the Aldine edition, 1509, was based on no one of the manu- 
scripts in existence to-day and it is not easy to decide its exact place in 
the stemma. It has several cases of the omission of one word, many 
errors of the type-setter and an occasional startling agreement in error 
with one or another of the codices, but, in general, the relationship seems 
to be closest with the group M, F1, W, as these readings from the Aetia 
Graeca show: 


M, F1, W, and Aldine Edition w 
1 @enicrevoeyv +L 324, 9 eOeulorevev 
2 év déov 326, 24 év O€ 
3 rav-+E 328, 7 er 
4 rovs 332,8 one 
5 Bpavpwvros Ss2pe Bappwvos 
6 bi 333, 3 of 
7 pEapxayebas (F1 omits) 333, 24 péapyevas 
8 witapxayevay (F1 omits) 333, 25 prteapyevay 
9 ératpiav (F1 omits) 337, 25 éTatpelay 

10 de (Fi omits) 344, 1 — 


60 


M, F1, W, and Aldine Edition 


11 6+E 
12 dAaBpadéa+ E 


13 mapakxadirrecbat 


14 — 
Ban 


344, 18 
346, 21 
348, 10 
349, 11 
349, 21 


PLUTARCH’S AETIA GRAECA AND AETIA ROMANA [308 


w 
AaBpabéws 
mwepikadvrredbar 
of (ai Bern.) 


7 


Peculiar readings with F1, W narrow the possibilities: 


F1, W and Aldine Edition 
1 éyiyvero 

2 peraotnvar+F3 

3 aiodetar 
4 rpotas 
5 ddvcéws 


6 dvrisaxia+ Ri 


324, 4 
340, 17 
341, 1 
344, 7 
347, 21 
352, 5 


w 
% £ 
eVEVETO 
bMeravacThnvat 
aloNiat 
Tpolav 
ddvacews 
éyTimaxela 


The strongest evidence against this relationship occurs in these read- 


ings: 


Aldine Edition 


1 veapeis+w except F1, W, E 

2 ogevdovotvtes+w except F1,W,M 
3 &veyyinoev-+ w except F1,W,M 
4 vopos+qm except F1,W,M dvoua, R3, F3 6 vouds 342, 18 


323, 22 
324, 24 
335, 14 


The differences are slight and do not necessarily imply a second source, 
but there is another group of readings which suggest correction from 


R3 or F3. 


R3, F3, and Aldine Edition 
1 drépns +E 


2 rov 


3 travapevov +F1, W 

4 rirrast+R1,R3,F3(F1, 
W,M, omit) 

5 Trav +E 


331013 
531.44 
331, 14 


338, 13 
338, 26 


w 
@ UU 
brepnros 
THY 
TAAVWLEVNY 


TiTT av 
Tals 


To illustrate the difficulty of proof, I shall cite from the Aetia Romana 
a part of the curious agreement with individual manuscripts as well 
as the evidence for derivation from the F1, W, M family. 


W and Aldine Edition 
1 Hyobpevov 

2 wérTepov 

3 iwvopov 
4 


vo 


255, 13 
291, 9 
294, 20 
317, 20 


w 
H’youmevou 
1 pOTEpoV 
olwyic pov 
1 wep 


309] PLUTARCH’S AETIA GRAECA AND AETIA ROMANA 61 


M and Aldine Edition 
1 dvmper 
2 Kéxparat (xexpa—rat, 
Tn erased, M) 
3 émept@pwy 


Fi and Aldine Edition 
1 éveoruw 


2— 


258, 3 


267, 26 
295, 20 


263, 23 
283, 8 


Fi, W, M, and Aldine Edition 


og 
1 dcamep (Sca7ep, M) 


253, 13 


w 
Svape 


KEKPATNT AL 
TEPLEWPWP 


w 
é&y éoru 
Kal 


a9) 


docaTeEp 


, , a 
2 ovyKkekadvuppéevars+-A; ouyKxexadupéevats W, F1; ovyxexadvpévars M; 


3 of (of>o0t, M) 

4 pndev &xpnotov 

5 & moddots 7d Snudcrov 
év moots 

6 dvovlérnatov 


oe 
F1, W, and Aldine Edition 


1 paxapéce 

2 rotvoya waKeNdov 

3 dvety (F1 omits) 

4 mwapeyxecrat (F1 omits) 
5 oBirAdALa 

6 otfev 

7 aes 

8 ris 


Aldine Edition+w against 
1 peprfduevov 
2 vouyas 

VOULLGS 

voupas 


voua+M,F1,W,A(m1) 


vovvovoivas 


STH OTP W 


padtiw 
8 KaTerAnppevos 
9 rovTO 


10 dvotv 


258, 11 
264, 4 
284, 3 


291, 11 
300, 22 
302, 13 


253, 14 
285, 2 

287, 19 
291, 9 

301, 26 
306, 27 
307, 19 
314, 27 


251, 8 
259, 13 
261, 15 
261, 21 
285, 9 


278, 16 
306, 2 
310, 17 
313) 2 
313, 16 


ouyKeKaNvuppevor w 
ov 
pnoeva xpnordor 


— 76 dnyudcroy év rodXots 
avovbernrov 


heyerar (A, m2+w) 


a) 
pakapeoot 
paKeNAov Tobvoua 
dvoty 

TAPAKELTAL 


* otBvAdELa 


ovdev 
kal (the first) 


—— 


Fi, W 
peptfouevos-+M, F2 
vouas + M. 

(voupas ) 
vou.as + M. 


(vouna, w) 


Wh ONE 
vouvodivas F1,W; vovvodivasM 
padiwy-+M 
KQTELNNUEVOV 


ToUTw 
dvetv W; F1 omits. 


62 PLUTARCH’S AETIA GRAECA AND AETIA ROMANA [310 


R3 has only one peculiar reading in the Aetta Romana with the Aldine 
edition, atrds, 291, 11 for atv; one other may be also due to R3, éréxpugor, 
Ald., érixpugov, w, aroxpygov, R3, F3, but the evidence is very weak; cf. 
amoxpupw, Ald. 257,17, daoxpiow, F1, W, amroxprow >aroxpyppw, M. Both 
are probably due to the typesetter. 

Treu! found that R3 was the source of pages 750—770 in the Aldine 
edition, essays 42, 49 and 50, which made it necessary to consider it 
carefully here, but at most it can have been used only when other manu- 
scripts failed. I believe the Aldine Edition was based on a manuscript 
closely related to H, the archetype of F1 and W, and possibly emended 
from the R3, F3 and R2 groups, and since there are no readings that are 
not found in extant manuscripts, it is valuable only in supporting F1, 
W against the family derived from A. 


XI. CONCLUSION 


No partial study in a debated field of manuscript-relationships can 
be accepted as conclusive for the manuscripts as a whole, and the late 
manuscripts containing the Aefia Graeca and the Aetia Romana, although 
comparatively well-known, are still three-fourths untouched in so far 
as their place in the family tree is concerned; on the other hand, a cross- 
section may give as accurate results as a complete collation, and since 
one must work with the materials at hand, I have not hesitated to disagree 
with such a Plutarchean scholar as Wegehaupt in the derivation of A, 
R2, R3, and E. 

To return to the Planudean Corpus. The admitted facts are these: 

1. M is the oldest manuscript having the order 1—69; the source of 
essays 1—21 in M, through one lost manuscript, is Mosc. 352, so that 
it is uncertain whether M had one source or several.! 

2. M was not written by Planudes nor was A.? 

3. Planudes, on the evidence of his letters of the year 1295, intended 
to make a copy of Plutarch, and in March, 1296, had secured the necessary 
parchment? 

4. In the margin of the twenty-second essay in R2 and E is a correc- 
tion ascribed to Maximus Planudes and the original of this correction, in 
M, is in a hand that is probably that of Planudes.* 

Before M had been examined, the theory was held that Planudes had 
composed the archetype of the Planudean Corpus, which was lost after 
several copies had been made. However, Wegehaupt, with a knowledge 


11881; see Wegehaupt, 1905: 411. 

1 Wegehaupt, 1909: 1041 and 1043, where he states his belief that M is from several 
sources. 

* This is proved by a comparison of Planudes’ writing in Marc. 481 with M and A. 

3 Mewaldt, 1906: 829. 

* Mewaldt, 1906: 829; 7, p. 11. 


311] ‘ PLUTARCH’S AETIA GRAECA AND AETIA ROMANA 63 


of M and many other manuscripts to which little attention had been paid 
previously, realised that this archetype of Planudes may never have 
existed, and modified the theory to this: Planudes did not work on a 
single edition but spent a number of years on Plutarch, emending and 
collecting forgotten essays.° This latter theory harmonises with my 
manuscript-derivations; Planudes corrected M, a fact that was known to 
the author of R2 who copied the correction in 22 from A, giving credit for 
it to Planudes, and this form of the correction was transmitted to E. 

Now, if my stemma is correct, which is the manuscript of Planudes? 
We know from Planudes’ writing in Marc. 481 that it is no one of the 
manuscripts in existence today, so that the one manuscript not accounted 
for is e¢, which may naturally have been neglected because E replaced it, 
and which in E has a witness of the methodical and minute care in editing 
that one’ would expect from the editor of the Anthology. This text- 
critical work of Planudes on the Anthology came to an end in September, 
1302, the date of Marc. 481, which is six years after Planudes received the 
parchment for his intended copy of Plutarch. Therefore, if Planudes did 
make his copy, this means that he had but six years in which to copy and 
make a readable text of Plutarch and to reclassify, expurgate, emend and 
copy the Greek Anthology in addition to serving as ambassador to Venice 
in the summer of 1296. Of course, Planudes may have worked on the 
Anthology before 1296, but it is improbable that the man who was chosen 
for the important post of ambassador to Venice would have been allowed 
entire leisure in the following years, so that one hypothetical argument off- 
sets the other. My own theory is that Planudes did not make his copy in 
1296 but shifted his attention to the Anthology, possibly, as Mewaldt 
suggested, turning over the parchment to some friend or subordinate 
who wrote the manuscript which in my stemma ise. After 1302—E is 
later than 1302 and the Ilivaé II\ovrdpxov in Marc. 481 contains only 
essays 1 to 69— Planudes returned to Plutarch and for the Moralia began 
working on e anda lost manuscript that contained 70—78, but did not live 
to complete his edition as he had the Anthology. Treu discovered a poem 
lamenting the famous monk’s early and unexpected death, and argued on 
general grounds that this death must have occurred circa 1310.6 Con- 
sequently, the lacunae in E where the vulgate text is unsatisfactory seem 
to me to indicate passages in e marked for correction to which Planudes 
intended to return but which he was prevented from emending by his 
unexpected death. 

The following stemma represents my conclusions with regard to the 
relationship of manuscripts that contain the Aetia Graeca and the Aetia 
Romana. 


61909: 1044. 
61877: XV. 


PLUTARCH’S AETIA GRAECA AND AETIA ROMANA 


ARCHETYPE 


wee 
"a 
~ 


[312 


ALDINE EDITION 


TABLE I. BIBLIOGRAPHY 


Breur, G. Die handschriftlichen Grundlage der im Corpus der Plutarchischen Moralia 
iiberlieferten Schrift MEPI MAIAQN ATOTH?2, Freising, 1911. 
Birt, TH. Das Antike Buchwesen, Berlin, 1882. 
Kritik und Hermeneutik in Mullers Handbuch, 1, pt. 3, 360, Miinchen, 1913. 
Der Movttn, H. La Tradition Manuscrite du Banquet des Sept Sages de Plutarque, Musée 
Belge, 8, 1904, p. 274. 
Diets, H. Doxographi Graeci, Berlin, 1879. 
Haun, V. De Plutarchi Moralium Codicibus Quaestiones Selectae, Cracow, 1905. 
Hauck, G. Plutarch von Chaeronea der Verfasser der Gastmahl der Sieben Weisen, Burg- 
hausen, 1892. 
LarsEN, S. C. Studia Critica in Plutarchi Moralia, Copenhagen, 1889. 
MEWALDT, J. Maximus Planudes und die Textgeschichte der Biographien Plutarchs, Sitz- 
ungsberichte der Preussischen Akademte der Wissenschaften, 1906, p. 824. 
MU tier, Berthold. Plutarch iiber die Seelensch6pfung im Timaeus, Breslau, 1873. 
Omont, H. Inventaire sommaire des Mss. Grecs de la Bibliothéque Nationale, Paris, 1886. 
Paton, W.R. Plutarchi Pythici Dialogi Tres, Berlin, 1893. 
Notes on Plutarch’s Ethica, Journal of Philology, 21, 1893, p. 1. 
*Plutarchi de cupiditate divitiarum, London, 1895. 
STUDEMUND, W., in Amsel, G.: De Vi et Indole Rhythmorum quid Veteres iudicaverint, 
Breslauer philologische Abhandlungen, I, 1887. 
Trev, M. De Plutarchi libellis qui in codice Tischendorfiano VII insunt, Jauraviae, 1868. 
De codicibus nonnullis Parisinis Plutarchi Moralium narratio, Jauraviae, 1871. 
Der sogennante Lampriaskatalog der Plutarchschriften, Waldenburg, 1873. 
Zur Geschichte der Ueberlieferung von Plutarchs Moralia, Program I, Waldenburg, 
1877. 
Program II, Ohlau, 1881. 
Program III, Breslau, 1884. 
Zur Ueberlieferung der Apophthegmata Laconica, Philologus, 47, 1889, p. 617. 
*Maximi Monachi Planudis Epistulae, Breslau, 1890. 
WEGEHAvPT, M. Zur Textgeschichte der Moralia Plutarchi, Philologus 64, 1905, p. 391. 
Plutarchstudien in italienische Bibliotheken, Cuxhaven, 1906. 
Die Entstehung des Corpus-Planudeum von Plutarchs Moralia, Sitzungs- 
berichte der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1909, p. 1030. 
Plutarchi IOTEPON TAQP H UTP XPHSIMOQTEPON. In xaprres, 
‘Friedrich Leo zum sechzigsten Geburtstag dargebracht, Berlin, 1911. 
WEIL, H. AnD Rernacu, Th. Plutarque de la Musique, Paris, 1900. 
WILAMOWITZ-MOELLENDoRF, U. von. Commentariolum Grammaticum III, Gottingen, 1889. 
Zu Plutarchs Gastmahl der Sieben Weisen, Hermes, 24, 
' 1890, p. 196. 
The Treatise of Plutarch de cupiditate divitiarum 
edited by W. R. Paton, Géttingischen gelehrte 
Anzeigen, 1896, p. 326. 
Lesefriichte, Hermes, 1905, p. 149 and 161. 
ZIEGLER, C. Lampriaskatalog, Rheinisches Museum, 63, 1908, p. 239. 
The starred titles I have not myself seen. 


65 


66 


CONAN SP WN RH 


‘Oo 


PLUTARCH’S AETIA GRAECA AND AETIA ROMANA 


TABLE II 


The order of the Moralia in codex Parisinus 1672, E 


de virtute et vitio 

de pueris educandis 

de profectionibus in virtute 

de sera numinis vindicta 

de capienda ex inimicis utilitate 

de audiendis poetis 

de adulatore et amico 

de se ipsum contra invidiam laudando 
de cohibenda ira 

de curiositate 

de tranquillitate animi 

de vitioso pudore 

de fraterno amore 

de garrulitate 

de audiendo 

de amicorum multitudine 

de cupiditate divitiarum 

de fortuna 

animine an corporis affectiones sint peiores 
aqua an ignis utilior 

de superstitione 

consolatio ad Apollonium 

consolatio ad uxorem 

de exilio 

Galba 

Otho 

de gloria Atheniensium 

cum principibus philosophandum esse 
de sanitate praecepta 

an seni respublica gerenda sit 

septem sapientium convivium 

de Iside et Osiride 

de mulierum virtutibus 

coniugalia praecepta 

ad principem ineruditum 

de esu carnium 

de fato 

aetia Platonica 

de musica 

Stoicos absurdiora poetis dicere 
Aristophanis et Menandri comparatio 
de animae procreatione epitome 

non posse suaviter vivi secundum Epicurum 
de latenter vivendo 

an vitiositas ad infelicitatem sufficiat 
de amore prolis 

de invidio et odio 


[314 


315] 


48 


PLUTARCH’S AETIA GRAECA AND AETIA ROMANA 


de unius in republica dominatione 


49 amatoriae narrationes 


50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 


aetia physica 

de placitis philosophorum 

de virtute morali 

de primo frigido 

de vita et poesi Homeri 

an virtus doceri possit 

de fortuna Romanorum 

de Alexandri fortuna aut virtute 
praecepta gerendae reipublicae 
regum et imperatorum apophthegmata 
apophthegmata Laconica; instituta Laconica; Lacaenarum apophthegmata 
parallela Graeca et Romana 

Aetia Romana et Graeca 

decem oratorum vitae 

bruta ratione uti 

de vitando aere alieno 

de Stoicorum repugnantiis 

de sollertia animalium 

de E Delphico 

de defectu oraculorum 

amatorius 

de facie in orbe lunae 

de Pythiae oraculis 

adversus Coloten 

de communibus notitiis 

de genio Socratis 

de Herodoti malignitate 

de animae procreatione in Timaeo 
quaestiones convivalium 


TABLE III. SEGLA 


A=Paris. 1671, anno 1296. 
E=Paris. 1672, s.XIV. 
F1=Laur. 56,2, s.XIV. 

F2= Laur. 80,5, s. XIV. 
F3= Laur. 80, 21, s. XIV. 
L=Leid. Voss. 2, s.XV. 


ee 


Ambr. C 126 inf., s XIII. 


P= Paris. 1680, s.XIV. 
R1=Vat. 80, s.XV. 
R2=Vat. 139, s. XIII. 
R3=Vat. 1013, s.XIV. 
T=Tolet. 20, s.XV. 
V= Marc. 248, s.XV. 


W= 


Vindob. 74, s.XV. 


w =the common reading of all manuscripts not otherwise mentioned. 


67 


68 PLUTARCH’S AETIA GRAECA AND AETIA ROMANA 


EDITIONS 


1509, Demetrius Ducas, Aldine Press, Venice. 
1542, Frobenius, Basel. 

1572, Stephanus, Paris. 

1574, Xylander, Basel. 

1599 and 1629, Greco-Latin edition, Frankfurt. 
1624, Greco-Latin edition, Paris. 

1778, Reiske, Leipzig. 

1791, Hutten, Tiibingen. 

1795, Wyttenbach, Oxford. 

1839, Duebner, Paris. (Second edition, 1890.) 
1872, Hercher, Leipzig. 

1888, Bernardakis, Leipzig. 


[316 


VITA 


I, John Bradford Titchener, was born January 2, 1898, at Ithaca, N. Y., 
where I attended the Grammar and High Schools. In 1914 I entered Clark 
College, Worcester, Mass., and graduated from the three year course in 
1917 with the degree of A.B. The next two years I spent in the Ambulance 
Service of the American Red Cross and in the U. S. Army, enlisting in 
September, 1917, when the former Service was taken over by the Army, and 
I was honorably discharged in May, 1919. During the academic years 
1919-20 and 1920-21 I was Research Assistant (half-time) in Classics to 
Professor W. A. Oldfather at the University of Illinois; in 1921 I received 
the master’s degree. In 1921-22 I taught (half-time) in the department of 
Classics of the University of Illinois, and in 1922-23 I received a Fellow- 
ship in Classics. I have attended Cornell University, for the modern 
languages, during the Summer-sessions 1913 to 1916; in the summer 
sessions of 1921 and 1922 I taught Latin at the University of Wisconsin. 
With Professor W.-A. Oldfather I have published a note in Classical 
Philology for January, 1921, on the Lexicon Militare, and I have assisted 
Professors Pease and Oldfather in the preparation of the text and transla- 
tion of Onasander for the volume of the Loeb Classical Library on Greek 
Tacticians. I have also assisted in various researches in the text of Avianus 
and his imitators. 

I have to thank Professors H. D. Brackett and C. N. Randolph of 
Clark College, Professors H. V. Canter, W. A. Oldfather, A. T. E. Olmstead, 
and A. S. Pease of the University of Illinois for their careful supervision 
of my training in Latin and Greek. My dissertation was written under the 
guidance of Professor W. A. Oldfather, with suggestion and criticism from 
Professor A. S. Pease, both of whom have had the kindness to read the 
proof of this study. 


‘ 


ERRATA Slip 
Titchner John Bradford 
anuseript-Tradition 

Plutarech’s Aetia 

Graeca & Aeétia 
Romana 


ADDENDA ET CORRIGENDA 


p. 20. The stemma should follow, not precede, the sentence beginning ““Demoulin in 
00" aa 

p. 20. The following footnote should be added to the criticism of Demoulin’s stemma: 
In Musée Belge, 17, 1913, p. 65 f., Demoulin adds Vind. 36 (olim 75) and Vind. 46 (olim 74) 
and recasts his stemma from a comparison of the work of Paton and Wegehaupt. 

p. 25. The following footnote should be added to the words “‘Aetia Graeca and Aetia 
Romana”: This title is attested by Plutarch himself in the Vitae: Romulus, 15, 7 & rots 
Airlous (Lindskog-Ziegler, 1, p. 58, 1.23)yCamillus, 19, 12 & 7G mepi airiwy ‘Papixar ft, 
p. 238, 1.1). , 

p. 65. For Moellendorf read Moellendorff. 

p. 67. Between A and E, Table III, insert: Ang. =Angelicanus 63, s. XIV. 


01120 72881607 


nc 


